PDA

View Full Version : House passes Cap and Trade bill


hindes204
06-26-2009, 09:41 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/26/house-passes-milestone-energy-climate-change/

The House of Representatives Friday approved a milestone energy and climate change bill that would curb greenhouse gasses omitted by industry and agriculture.


AP
Friday, June 26, 2009

WASHINGTON -- The Democratic-controlled House, dealing a legislative victory to President Obama, narrowly passed sweeping legislation Friday that calls for the nation's first limits on pollution linked to global warming and aims to usher in a new era of cleaner, yet more costly energy.

The vote was 219-212, capping months of negotiations and days of intense bargaining among Democrats. Republicans were overwhelmingly against the measure, arguing it would destroy jobs in the midst of a recession while burdening consumers with a new tax in the form of higher energy costs.

The House's action fulfilled Speaker Nancy Pelosi's vow to clear major energy legislation before July 4, and sent the measure to a highly uncertain fate in the Senate.

Obama lobbied recalcitrant Democrats by phone from the White House as the debate unfolded across several hours, and Al Gore posted a statement on his Web site saying the measure represents "an essential first step towards solving the climate crisis." The former vice president won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work drawing attention to the destructive potential of global warming.

On the House floor, Democrats hailed the legislation as historic, while Republicans said it would damage the economy without solving the nation's energy woes.

It is "the most important energy and environmental legislation in the history of our country," said Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts. "It sets a new course for our country, one that steers us away from foreign oil and towards a path of clean American energy."

But Rep. John Boehner, the House Republican leader, used an extraordinary one-hour speech shortly before the final vote to warn of unintended consequences in what he said was a "defining bill." He called it a "bureaucratic nightmare" that would cost jobs, depress real estate prices and put the government into parts of the economy where it now has no role.

The legislation would require the U.S. to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and by about 80 percent by mid-century. That was slightly more aggressive than Obama originally wanted, 14 percent by 2020 and the same 80 percent by mid-century.

U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are rising at about 1 percent a year and are predicted to continue increasing without mandatory limits.

Under the bill, the government would limit heat-trapping pollution from factories, refineries and power plants and issue allowances for polluters. Most of the allowances would be given away, but about 15 percent would be auctioned by bid and the proceeds used to defray higher energy costs for lower-income individuals and families.

"Some would like to do more. Some would like to do less," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said in advance of the final vote. "But we have reached a compromise ... and it is a compromise that can pass this House, pass that Senate, be signed by the president and become law and make progress."

One of the biggest compromises involved the near total elimination of an administration plan to sell pollution permits and raise more than $600 billion over a decade -- money to finance continuation of a middle class tax cut. About 85 percent of the permits are to be given away rather than sold in a ceoncession to energy companies and their allies in the House -- and even that is uncertain to survive in the Senate.

The final bill also contained concessions to satisfy farm-state lawmakers, ethanol producers, hydroelectric advocates, the nuclear industry and others, some of them so late that they were not made public until 3 a.m. on Friday.

Supporters and opponents agreed the result would be higher energy costs but disagreed vigorously on the impact on consumers. Democrats pointed to two reports -- one from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the other from the Environmental Protection Agency -- that suggested average increases would be limited after tax credits and rebates were taken into account. The CBO estimated the bill would cost an average household $175 a year, the EPA $80 to $110 a year.

Republicans questioned the validity of the CBO study and noted that even that analysis showed actual energy production costs increasing $770 per household. Industry groups have cited other studies showing much higher costs to the economy and to individuals.

The White House and congressional Democrats argued the bill would create millions of "green jobs" as the nation shifts to greater reliance on renewable energy sources such as wind and solar and development of more fuel-efficient vehicles -- and away from use of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal.

It will "make our nation the world leader on clean energy jobs and technology," declared Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who negotiated deals with dozens of lawmakers in recent weeks to broaden the bill's support.

Pelosi, D-Calif., took an intense personal interest in the measure, sitting through hours of meetings with members of the rank and file and nurturing fragile compromises.

At its heart, the bill was a trade-off, less than the White House initially sought though it was more than Republicans said was acceptable. Some of the dealmaking had a distinct political feel. Rep. Alan Grayson, a first-term Democrat, won a pledge of support that $50 million from the proceeds of pollution permit sales in the bill would go to a proposed new hurricane research facility in his district in Orlando, Fla.

"This is revolutionary. This is a moment in history," declared Markey, a co-sponsor of the bill.

Republicans saw it differently.

This "amounts to the largest tax increase in American history under the guise of climate change," declared Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind.








I dont think it will make it through the Senate, but it still scares the hell out of me

MACH1
06-26-2009, 09:53 PM
If it makes it through were all screwed.

Preacher
06-27-2009, 03:40 PM
kinda funny how 300 pages of text were dropped on the laps of the republicans just a few hours before the vote.

Also interesting that under the guise of "global warming" they are trying to "fix" a whole bunch of different things.

Talk about shoddy, underhanded politics.

hindes204
06-27-2009, 03:48 PM
kinda funny how 300 pages of text were dropped on the laps of the republicans just a few hours before the vote.

Also interesting that under the guise of "global warming" they are trying to "fix" a whole bunch of different things.

Talk about shoddy, underhanded politics.

What do you mean, this is the new "transparent" administration....all bills will be prepared and then allowed to be reviewed way before the vote (place sarcasm smiley here)

KeiselPower99
06-28-2009, 01:16 AM
add this tax to the impending health care tax and welcome to Russia right after the fall of the Sovient Union .

fansince'76
06-28-2009, 11:29 AM
....Al Gore posted a statement on his Web site saying the measure represents "an essential first step towards solving the climate crisis." The former vice president won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work drawing attention to the destructive potential of global warming.

Not to mention pocketing a cool $100 mil while doing so. No self-serving agenda there.

revefsreleets
06-28-2009, 02:25 PM
This will have an IMMEDIATE impact on electric bills for those whose power is derived from coal. That is, if this fetid lump of donkey turd bill actually makes it through the Senate, which I suspect it will not. Senators are MUCH more exposed to single issue voting reactions, and voting for this bill is a natural "term-limiter". You have a "yea" marked next to a vote that directly increases 85% of your constituents electric bills $100 a month and you WILL be looking for a new job after the next election.

I still have no idea how this thing got as far as it did. It's based on a hoax and does nothing but rape lower and middle class people for God knows who long.

When there is some VIABLE alternative in place and ready to be ramped up, go for it, but we are NOT there!

I am really, really, really angry about this. Eff Stupid-assed lying sack of shit Al Gore, and eff stupid-assed liberal knee-jerk Obama for being smart enough to know better but too much of a political w hore to lay off. How many different ways can this guy eff us over in just a couple hundred days?

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-28-2009, 03:22 PM
It's based on a hoax and does nothing but rape lower and middle class people for God knows who long.


Actually...they have built in "wealth distribution" clauses for the lower class.

In the current bill, 15% of all allowances each year are set aside to reimburse low income households for higher energy costs.

Benefits to lower income households, many of whom are not in the tax system (don't pay one time in taxes)...... would be distributed through a monthly refund through the household’s bank account or delivered through state electronic benefit transfer systems (cash deposited directly into their bank acoounts)....


Households below 150% of the poverty line would be eligible and households receiving food stamps and participants in the Low Income Subsidy program for the Medicare prescription drug benefit would automatically qualify.

This low income relief would be in addition to more lower income relief that would be distributed through Local Distribution Companies (LDCs) using 30% of the allocations.

revefsreleets
06-28-2009, 03:32 PM
Hmmmmmm...wealth distribution, eh?

Notice how I said 85%.

The top 5% will be unaffected because they are uber-rich and don't care.

And the bottom 10% will be exempt because they don't pay for anything on their own anyway...

I'm getting angry!
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/06/23/photos/xprs-hulk.jpg

hindes204
06-28-2009, 03:39 PM
Im pretty sure that this bill will get shot down in the senate anyway...Senators know they will be on the hot seat when voting on this, and if they want to remain a senator, they will vote against it

tony hipchest
06-28-2009, 06:17 PM
kinda funny how 300 pages of text were dropped on the laps of the republicans just a few hours before the vote.

Also interesting that under the guise of "global warming" they are trying to "fix" a whole bunch of different things.

Talk about shoddy, underhanded politics.nothing new here. washington wasnt built in a day.

Preacher
06-29-2009, 02:09 AM
nothing new here. washington wasnt built in a day.

When they came to power vowing to "clean up Washington" yeah, there is something new here.

They whined and cried when they lost power a few years ago, and the GOP changed the house rules to accomodate them. Now, they get back into power and quickly change the rules back to what they used to be. On top of that, they play these kind of games... and the press, and you, just look the other way by saying "well, that's just washington."

Really? I noticed when Palin was being investigate you never said, "well, that's just politics."

Sorry "Just washington" doesn't wash. It is dirty, underhanded third world politics. It's something I expect from the democrats in my state (who just tried to pull that with the budge a little while ago), but I thought the Dems on the national stage were above that. I really did.

Guess I was wrong.

There is no depth which they will not sink too.

revefsreleets
06-29-2009, 07:59 AM
Good news (If this guy is right)! LOL at him stating that the congress is a bunch of Pelosi sock puppets...note that this article is almost a month old.

By the by, they vote today, so if you're going to call your Senator time is short...

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090603094659.aspx

Not too long ago, global warming activism in the U.S. Capitol made some sort of carbon cap-and-trade legislation seem like a near certainty. But the tide may be turning.



According to Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., the ranking Republican of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, a key committee needed for passage of a cap-and-trade bill, the trend indicates it can’t pass, at least in the U.S. Senate. He explained that the House, under the leadership of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, will pass anything, but it takes both houses of Congress for it to become law.



“I want to tell you what’s going to happen from this point forward in my opinion,” Inhofe said at the Heartland Institute’s Third International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, D.C. on June 2. “First of all, the House will pass anything. Nancy Pelosi has the votes to pass anything. Don’t be distressed when you see the House passes some kind of cap-and-trade bill. And you know it could be worse [than the proposed bill] and she could still pass it, so it’ll pass there.”



One possibility some have suggested is that the Environmental Protection Agency would impose cap-and-trade regulations under the Clean Air Act, a law that gives the EPA authority to regulate pollution in the name of protecting the nation’s air quality. That according to Inhofe can be stalled until President Barack Obama leaves office.



“The EPA has threatened to regulate this through the Clean Air Act,” Inhofe explained. “That isn’t going to work in my opinion because we can stall that until we get a new president – that shouldn’t be a problem.”



But, the key component of the legislative process under these circumstances would be the U.S. Senate. Inhofe pointed to a measure that would require any climate treaty to include developing nations to self-impose the carbon restrictions for the United States to also go along with it.



“While the House will pass the bill … in the Senate, they’re not going to be able to pass it,” Inhofe said. “You guys – it’s just not going to happen. Now we have a history of what’s happened in the Senate. We had the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Remember that’s where we passed by a 94-1, I think it was, saying we don’t want to ratify any treaty – the Senate doesn’t – that doesn’t include developing nations with developed nations. Well, that stuck with us.”



Inhofe explained that in 2003 and 2005, he was able to nearly single-handedly take down a bill sponsored by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joseph Liebermann, I-Conn., which would have set a cap-and-trade system in place.



“Yet, with very popular people, like McCain and Liebermann coming up in ’03 and then again in ’05 – the reason I’m going to tell you that they don’t have the votes, it’s not going to pass is that in ’05, that’s when I was on the floor for eight hours a day, five days, or about 10 hours a days, 50 hours – is that only two senators would come to the floor that would help me with this because I was taking on McCain and Liebermann on this silly issue.”



But, in 2008 with a similar bill sponsored by Sens. Liebermann and John Warner, R-Va., he had gained significant support compared to his 2003 and 2005 efforts, showing a trend that passage of this type of bill is becoming increasingly more difficult.



“And you fast forward to one year ago today, 2008 – Warner-Liebermann,” Inhofe said. “It didn’t take five days, it took two days – 23 senators came down to help me out on this issue, because I told [California Democratic Sen.] Barbara Boxer to you know, get over it, get a life. You lost, we won.”



The Oklahoma senator credited the Founding Fathers, noting that the senate rules put in place are a difficult obstacle for the global warming activists in the federal government to overcome.



“It will pass in the House, in the Senate it will not pass,” Inhofe continued. “And her latest vote and she won’t admit this, but it’s 34 votes and it takes 60 votes in the Senate. Maybe the people who wrote our constitution knew what they were talking about.”

hindes204
06-29-2009, 08:05 AM
Yea, Im with him, i honestly dont think there is a chance in hell this thing passes in the senate, thats what ive been saying the whole time...it still bothers me that that moron of a woman pelosi holds that much influence over the house

atlsteelers
06-29-2009, 11:03 AM
as a biologist i strongly believe in capping carbon output. i personally think that clean air is extremely important and worth the investment. hopefully this bill is only the start. wait until we get a chance to rewrite the clean air act.

fansince'76
06-29-2009, 11:09 AM
as a biologist i strongly believe in capping carbon output. i personally think that clean air is extremely important and worth the investment. hopefully this bill is only the start. wait until we get a chance to rewrite the clean air act.

Cool! When my electricity bill doubles (or triples), can I send it to you for payment then?

atlsteelers
06-29-2009, 11:15 AM
Cool! When my electricity bill doubles (or triples), can I send it to you for payment then?

if you use it you get to pay for it. i live very modestly and my power bill reflects it. if my power bill doubles i do not care. clean air and water are well worth it.

fansince'76
06-29-2009, 11:22 AM
if you use it you get to pay for it. i live very modestly and my power bill reflects it. if my power bill doubles i do not care. clean air and water are well worth it.

Great, I'll take that as a "yes," then. It's not about clean air and water - it's about knee-jerk overreaction to a "problem" which is erroneously blamed on being 100% human-induced as opposed to being brought about by natural causes.

revefsreleets
06-29-2009, 11:23 AM
if you use it you get to pay for it. i live very modestly and my power bill reflects it. if my power bill doubles i do not care. clean air and water are well worth it.

So if this results in 18% unemployment, losing 2.2 real jobs for every highly subsidized "green" job created (as it did in Spain), and has no real effect anyway because India and China will open a hundred new coal burning plants at as chaeply as they possibly can (which will increase their leverage in the world while ours decreases), it's all worth it?

Silly liberal, Utopian dreams are for kids...

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-29-2009, 11:24 AM
as a biologist i strongly believe in capping carbon output. i personally think that clean air is extremely important and worth the investment. hopefully this bill is only the start. wait until we get a chance to rewrite the clean air act.

Do you believe that this should be done at ANY cost?

atlsteelers
06-29-2009, 11:27 AM
well the cost of this bill is being exagerated by the oil group.

But critics have vastly overstated the likely cost. In fact, they're all but lying. During the House debate, Republican whip Eric Cantor, using numbers from an American Petroleum Institute study, said that the bill would eventually cost more than $3,000 per family per year — but those numbers assume that billions of tons worth of inexpensive carbon offsets won't be available under the bill, which would significantly inflate the overall cost. That's not going to happen. A more reliable study from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office forecast that the bill would cost the average U.S. household $175 in higher energy costs annually by 2020 — and other studies estimate that the energy-efficiency provisions in the bill might even save Americans money over time. "The emission reductions in the bill can clearly be achieved at a tiny cost to the economy," says Nathaniel Keohane, the EDF's director of economic policy and analysis.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1907528,00.html

so yes i think this bill is a good thing.

revefsreleets
06-29-2009, 11:33 AM
well the cost of this bill is being exagerated by the oil group.

But critics have vastly overstated the likely cost. In fact, they're all but lying. During the House debate, Republican whip Eric Cantor, using numbers from an American Petroleum Institute study, said that the bill would eventually cost more than $3,000 per family per year — but those numbers assume that billions of tons worth of inexpensive carbon offsets won't be available under the bill, which would significantly inflate the overall cost. That's not going to happen. A more reliable study from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office forecast that the bill would cost the average U.S. household $175 in higher energy costs annually by 2020 — and other studies estimate that the energy-efficiency provisions in the bill might even save Americans money over time. "The emission reductions in the bill can clearly be achieved at a tiny cost to the economy," says Nathaniel Keohane, the EDF's director of economic policy and analysis.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1907528,00.html

so yes i think this bill is a good thing.

The $175 has already been debunked by real-world practical examples. In Europe, the costs are more like $1300 a year per family. That's not an estimate, that's a real, hard number.

The Spanish example is real, too, not pie-in-the-sky best case scenarios.

This is a bad bill. It makes no sense, as it taxes the shit out of the existing means of powering this country BEFORE there is a viable alternative. It's extremely flawed...

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-29-2009, 11:35 AM
well the cost of this bill is being exagerated by the oil group.

But critics have vastly overstated the likely cost. In fact, they're all but lying. During the House debate, Republican whip Eric Cantor, using numbers from an American Petroleum Institute study, said that the bill would eventually cost more than $3,000 per family per year — but those numbers assume that billions of tons worth of inexpensive carbon offsets won't be available under the bill, which would significantly inflate the overall cost. That's not going to happen. A more reliable study from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office forecast that the bill would cost the average U.S. household $175 in higher energy costs annually by 2020 — and other studies estimate that the energy-efficiency provisions in the bill might even save Americans money over time. "The emission reductions in the bill can clearly be achieved at a tiny cost to the economy," says Nathaniel Keohane, the EDF's director of economic policy and analysis.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1907528,00.html

so yes i think this bill is a good thing.

Already answered in another thread

The Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of the climate legislation and stated that it would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. HOWEVER...This is a one year analysis that did not take into account the fact that the cap to reduce energy emmisions gets tighter with time.
The analysis looks solely at the year 2020...which is before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of those opportunities to decrease their emissions, the price of government issued permits will go through the roof and of ....these expensive permits will be passed to the consumers.

The analysis even admitted that it only looked at the day by day cost but...: "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."

Simply...The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of energy...(electricity and gas) in the hopes that we will use less. The end result will be that these prices will show up not just in our monthly electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good...from clothes...to food...to cars. As the prices go up, You and I willl cut back on spending..... which in turn will force companies to cut back on production..... which results in fewer jobs......which creates higher unemployment.

Other individual analysis have shown that this bill will cost the economy a little over $161 billion in 2020, which is the $1,870 increase in cost per family that we see thrown around. Following this scenerio...when the bill's restrictions kick in, that numbercould rise to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

Now that is just an average per family when considering the country as a whole....It doesn't take into account the fact that certain areas of the country will be more severely hit than others.....coal producing states for example.

Before this bill hit the floor...Three amendments were proposed to protect Americans from large increases in prices.
1) Suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon
2) Suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009
3) Suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%.

The majority party defeated all of them....and we should be asking ourselves ...Why?

atlsteelers
06-29-2009, 11:49 AM
i guess we can agree to disagree. you are intitled to your opinion. i think the bill is a good thing, unfortunately it will probally not pass the senate but its only the begining. like i said in an earlier post the bigger goal is to get congress to pass a new broader and stricter Clean Air and Water Act. If this thing gets the polluters worked up hopefully a new CAWA will have them sh*ting their pants. I think the current bill will actually save consumers money in the long run in that it will force the energy producers to become more efficient, the users to become more efficient, and will save folks money on their wellness (i.e. help asthma sufferers, less cancer, and other diseases).

revefsreleets
06-29-2009, 11:55 AM
It wouldn't start saving anybody any money until a viable alternative was found and implemented. That could take a decade...or 5 decades.

This is, quite literally, legislation that puts the cart before the horse.

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-29-2009, 12:02 PM
It wouldn't start saving anybody any money until a viable alternative was found and implemented. That could take a decade...or 5 decades.

This is, quite literally, legislation that puts the cart before the horse.

No horse....the horse was given to those without a cart ...to force "true patriotism" upon those who have to much wealth.

revefsreleets
06-29-2009, 12:05 PM
It is VERY important to remember what "cap and trade" is. It's a tax. Pure and simple. It's a tax on the entities that power this country. Those entities WILL pass their increased costs on to us, the end-user.

X-Terminator
06-29-2009, 01:29 PM
i guess we can agree to disagree. you are intitled to your opinion. i think the bill is a good thing, unfortunately it will probally not pass the senate but its only the begining. like i said in an earlier post the bigger goal is to get congress to pass a new broader and stricter Clean Air and Water Act. If this thing gets the polluters worked up hopefully a new CAWA will have them sh*ting their pants. I think the current bill will actually save consumers money in the long run in that it will force the energy producers to become more efficient, the users to become more efficient, and will save folks money on their wellness (i.e. help asthma sufferers, less cancer, and other diseases).

And like I said in the other thread, if you really believe that this bill will save taxpayers money in the long run, then with all due respect, you need your head examined. EVERYTHING that the government screws around with ends up costing you and me an assload of cash, often with very limited or no positive results.

Everyone in this country supports clean air and water. I am not even against a broader and stricter CAWA. I am FOR developing and implementing new and cleaner sources of energy. I am AGAINST new and unnecessary taxes that will end up becoming a huge burden on the nation's economy, which is exactly what this bill is. I'm even more against it given the economic climate right now, when unemployment is already at 10% and many people who are employed don't know if they'll have a job tomorrow.

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-29-2009, 01:49 PM
..... I'm even more against it given the economic climate right now, when unemployment is already at 10% and many people who are employed don't know if they'll have a job tomorrow.

I will.

Someone has to catch those biologists turned criminal when they have to steal food to support their family.

Fire Haley
06-29-2009, 02:52 PM
EPA buries science disputing warming claims


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IWLv4XOy5co&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IWLv4XOy5co&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Inhofe says the Cap & Trade bill will not pass the Senate, that it’s, “Dead on arrival.”

JEFF4i
06-29-2009, 03:48 PM
I'm vastly curious to see how this does in the Senate.

I could possibly see a filibuster with a couple democrats throwing in their assistance.

Fire Haley
06-29-2009, 09:25 PM
Here are some facts you may not know about Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax:

HOMEBUYERS BEWARE. Trying to save up for a new home? You may have to save up a little longer for your purchase. The Democrats’ bill would dramatically increase new home costs by mandating California’s expensive new building codes for the entire nation. Immediately upon enactment, the Democrats’ bill would demand a 30 percent increase in energy efficiency for new construction. A couple of years later, the Democrats’ bill would require an additional 50 percent improvement.

HOMEBUILDERS BEWARE. The Democrats’ bill imposes new mandatory regulations and civil penalties for homebuilders. If your state refuses to accept the stringent and costly California building codes, the federal government may assess penalties.

HOME SELLERS BEWARE. Having a hard time selling your home? Here’s one more hurdle to jump: all homes sales are conditioned upon an energy audit and a new energy rating assessment and energy labeling program for your home that’s outlined in the Democrats’ bill. And if you thought you could improve your property with a fresh coat of paint and some granite counters? Think again! Now your home will be subjected to a new energy rating assessment and energy labeling program that will penalize you for older windows, original fixtures, and dated appliances. So the Democrats’ bill would bring down the value of your home!

http://www.johnboehner.house.gov/blog/

43Hitman
06-30-2009, 08:07 AM
I heard about this this morning, more fun to come folks. Stay tuned as our nation is now being filmed in amazing depressovision.

revefsreleets
06-30-2009, 08:31 AM
The EPA thing isn't quite as nefarious as it may seem, BUT, if they attempt to cover-up ONE report that doesn't support the false claims of man-made global warming and got caught, how many others have they successfully buried?

The science is slowly but surely breaking through the thick barrier of prejudice on this issue. There will be a day, probably not too long from now, when "Man-mad Global Warming" will be categorized along with Phrenology and Eugenics...the question in the meantime is how many trillions of dollars will the world waste before that happens?

fansince'76
06-30-2009, 08:47 AM
There will be a day, probably not too long from now, when "Man-mad Global Warming" will be categorized along with Phrenology and Eugenics...

We can only hope. Of course anyone who questions the "validity" of manmade global warming at the moment is usually labeled an anti-science religious nut who also must obviously believe Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden on the backs of dinosaurs. :coffee:

revefsreleets
06-30-2009, 12:08 PM
Two things: I just found out that the vote wasn't yesterday. I thought they were trying to, as they did in the House, sneakily ramrod this through unbeknownst to most voters. turns out it will be a Fall vote for the Senate.

Secondly, a question for any cap-n-traders out there. Why in the World (literally) would ANY company want to do business in the US if this things passes? The tax rate is already the highest in the World, and this is, regardless of the name game being played, nothing but a giant tax, aimed right at big corporations. We're already killing companies on taxes and labor costs, not to mention all the ridiculous OSHA standards that are prohibitive for many businesses, but now this? Please tell me why this WON'T be the straw that broke many, if not most, companies back regarding doing business on US soil.

Or does it just not matter? We'll have clean air and water (not really...the bill will only have a TINY effect for many years, and the pollution explosion from other countries will occult any gains we see anyway), but no jobs, and that's the important thing?

fansince'76
06-30-2009, 12:37 PM
Or does it just not matter? We'll have clean air and water (not really...the bill will only have a TINY effect for many years, and the pollution explosion from other countries will occult any gains we see anyway), but no jobs, and that's the important thing?

Nah, we can all go to work for the (bloated) guvmint when all is said and done - I imagine there will be at least 5 or 6 new federal "agencies" that will spring up to enforce various aspects of this new piece of legislation, should it pass.

KeiselPower99
06-30-2009, 01:57 PM
I read this morning that the Senators for West Virginia seem to be conflicted on this. Robert Byrd and Jay Rockafeller wanna vote yes for it it but know itll kill the coal industry here. If either one vote yes they know they wont be in office after the next election. Also here is a site to sign a petition protesting the bill.

http://www.americansolutions.com/energytax/petition.php

revefsreleets
06-30-2009, 02:18 PM
Signed

43Hitman
07-01-2009, 06:53 AM
Signed

stlrtruck
07-01-2009, 07:08 AM
signed

43Hitman
07-01-2009, 07:11 AM
Since we are on the subject of Cap and Trade I figured I would post this. If this has been passed around already then I apologize.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

revefsreleets
07-01-2009, 08:40 AM
That should surprise no one. Gore is no better than a snake oil salesman or a crooked televangelist. He's the height of hypocrisy. He flies around in his jet literally using tons of jet fuel a pop, dumping scads of his supposed global warming pollutants in the atmosphere all in the name of saving the planet when all he's really doing is lining his pockets.

Fire Haley
07-01-2009, 01:39 PM
OHIO - bought and paid for.......bribes for votes

Rep. Kaptur gets $3.5 billion sweetener in climate bill

They finally secured the vote of one Ohioan, veteran Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Toledo, the old-fashioned way. They gave her what she wanted - a new federal power authority, similar to Washington state's Bonneville Power Administration, stocked with up to $3.5 billion in taxpayer money available for lending to renewable energy and economic development projects in Ohio and other Midwestern states.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/01/sweetener-helped-sway-vote-on-house-climate-bill/

hindes204
07-01-2009, 02:01 PM
Signed