Reply With Quote
Yes, even though the chemical, oil, electric, and manufacturing lobbies all were against this bill and lobbied accordingly, the vote sure indicates that the pricks in the HoR voted as dictated by those lobbyists.
Good call as usual, croutons!
"more favorable to them"
more favorable to their owners who will quid-pro-quo take care of them, now or after leaving office.
Yes, even though the chemical, oil, electric, and manufacturing lobbies all were against this bill and lobbied accordingly, the vote sure indicates that the pricks in the HoR voted as dictated by those lobbyists.
Good call as usual, croutons!
Croutons is right about the arithmetic in the Senate IMO.
Given the inherent difficulty of achieving cloture and the small absolute magnitude of the majority, special interests can stymie almost anything in the Senate by capturing a handful of US Senators.
Reps are too numerous and flakey to buy reliably, that's why the smart corporate money flows to the Senate.
I prefer, realist. At least I didn't fall into the hopey and changey herd.
Realists don't give up while there's still time on the clock.
Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/et...x_campaign.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRcq0Lxffwc
You probably would've been much help in the Revolutionary War then.
"What? Us go against the strongest Navy in the world?"
I think everyone realizes that promise is in the crapper.
Of course, Obama could say that every bill that doesn't get signed is due to some 'emergency'. I love it when Presidents use emergencies as excuses!
The CBO and any objective measure of this says that it is not going to be the "end of the world" and will cost far less than the Republican fear-mongering would have us believe.The cap and tax bill has past - just barely. And 8 stupid republicans voted yes. All of them will be out of a job when they come up for re-election!
I cannot believe this bill passed - this is going to kill our country. They estimate it will cost 2 MILLION jobs a year!!!!! Pelosi - that spiteful - had a 300 page amendment added in the middle of the night - so AGAIN - no one has read the bill they just voted for.
God this makes me so angry - and yet very, very sad for this once great country. It's a sad, sad day for all Americans.
In the end, the move away from volitile carbon-based non-renewable fuels will make the country as a whole far more compe ive than it was before for a lot of reasons.
The good thing about this is that, the Republicans will simply lose more credibility with centrists because of their opposition to this bill.
Keep up the good work, Crookshanks. People like you are the best thing that has happened to the Democrats in years.
While I agree with your premise, I think you're jumping the gun in thinking that it's a foregone conclusion that this is going to work. The evidence that this is going to work is still a decade away.The CBO and any objective measure of this says that it is not going to be the "end of the world" and will cost far less than the Republican fear-mongering would have us believe.
In the end, the move away from volitile carbon-based non-renewable fuels will make the country as a whole far more compe ive than it was before for a lot of reasons.
The good thing about this is that, the Republicans will simply lose more credibility with centrists because of their opposition to this bill.
Keep up the good work, Crookshanks. People like you are the best thing that has happened to the Democrats in years.
It will shift energy use from carbon-based forms, coal and oil, to other forms of energy, nuclear and renewables.
It won't happen overnight, but simple economic pressures and profit motive will do the rest.
Oil is about 5-10 years, if not less, from getting aciously expensive no matter what we do, and that will drive up the prices of everything as people and industries shift to something else.
The sooner we lay the groundwork for weaning ourselves from intensive oil-based energy usage, the farther out ahead of the pack we will be.
All of this is simply beside the CO2 emissions that are are the heart of the intent of this bill.
The CBO analysis is fundamentally flawed. The WSJ does a better job of explaining than I can.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html
Such as?In the end, the move away from volitile carbon-based non-renewable fuels will make the country as a whole far more compe ive than it was before for a lot of reasons.
Possible. Another possibility is the centrists decide this bill isn't all that great anymore when costs for electricity and gasoline go up and we find out that the same financial ins utions that got wrapped up in the mortgage crisis are now playing in the carbon allowance trading arena.The good thing about this is that, the Republicans will simply lose more credibility with centrists because of their opposition to this bill.
Anybody want to bet the principal "trader" of carbon credits won't be Goldman Sachs?
Please, what are the other objective measure. Do they include what the supply and demand aspect will do to the value of reducing numbers of carbon credits over time?
Please don't tell me you trust CBO numbers.
Yes, but only as a natural transition. As we move away from coal, and carbon tax energy, other nations will have even more advantages over us in manufacturing. That's why myself and others call this "The Full Chinese Employment Act of 2009!"
Only to those ignorant of the facts.
That will happen anyway. Forcing it early places us at a competative disadvantage world wide.
Yes, so why not just allow the profit motives do so in the first place?
Maybe. First of all, we will never run out of oil. Keep in mind, there are plenty of domestic resources available that congress just doesn't let us use.
Bull . I have had lessons from professionals on being ahead of the pack for profits. Intel has come real good practices in that regard. I used to work for a contrator to Intel. I had some real good training on that subject.
No, all I see is scare tactics in the media to make a new market of carbon trading in the USA. Friend of Gore will profit immensely, as this nations wealth diminishes.
It could be. All I know is that they will be the friends of, and those who are perpetrating this Anthropogenic Global Warming fraud.
You probably would've been much help in the Revolutionary War then.
"What? Us go against the strongest Navy in the world?"
Yeah, it's too bad the FBI is aware of ip adresses and internet message boards.
I think this country is past the point of giving senators a ring-a-ding to change the system of destruction.
Who said anything about that?
We're talking about one bill that may not pass the US Senate, not the end of the world.
I meant that you, as a realist, probably would've said that there's no way the colonies could defeat the British.Yeah, it's too bad the FBI is aware of ip adresses and internet message boards.
I think this country is past the point of giving senators a ring-a-ding to change the system of destruction.
We all knew ahead of time that Lafayette would sneak in from behind and hit Cornwallis over the head with a folding chair while Washington distracted the ref.I meant that you, as a realist, probably would've said that there's no way the colonies could defeat the British.
Exactly.
This bill does nothing but transfer wealth from the majority to the minority.
The financial ins utions now have a new market to exploit, the energy companies just plain dont care because no matter the costs theyre just passing it on to the consumer. The politicians though...I dont get what they receive out of this, really.
And I am sorry, RG, but this bill is anything but an incentive for energy infrastructure change. This is a half-ass bill to exploit.
If you, RG, wanted to change the energy consumption in this country, would this be the system to implemented? If so, I'd fire your ass.
The only effective mandate that could have came out of Washington was an X% increase of acceptable energy sources over Y number of years.
They half-assed it, purposely. Pathetic really. Write your congressman...as if I dont waste enough time here at ST. Congressmen are bought and paid for commodities. There may be a couple outliers or exceptions to the rule, but theyre hardly normal and even less influential. Disenfranchised, if you will.
All the better.
Forgive me if I do not assign much objectivity or weight to any analysis by a WSJ op-ed peice.
Any cost analysis, including the hysterical doom and gloom hand-waving on the part of the people who claim to be "pro-business", will have some vulnerability to starting assumptions, as the WSJ peice rightly points out.
It is entirely possible, and this is hinted at in this op-ed piece but never explicitly stated because they are trying to make a case against the bill and won't spell out anything that might hurt that case, that the cap and trade will actually benefit the economy in the long run and make our GDP higher than it would have been otherwise.
This point feeds into your "such as?" question.
There is, in my opinion, a very high likelihood that even if we did nothing at this point to encourage reduction in carbon-based non-renewable energy we would be facing massive run-ups in energy prices due to market factors in the coming years. This will likely happen even if we do the cap and trade too.
If we start developing a renewable energy tech base and infrastructure now, we can have years of research and development done, as well as some basic infrastruture built and good progress towards wringing out the efficiency gains that will allow us to be more insulated and prepared for these future es.
If we really do nothing, we can (collectively both public and privately) then scramble to do all of the research and development in a big rush while we are faced with es in energy that will make that rushed project effort all the more costly and the disruptions to our economy will happen all at once in some rather nasty shocks.
Europe's push for renewables now is happening. IF they do this and we don't, when the price of carbon-based fuels are ing, they will have already make themselves insulated from these costs, and will face the rather pleasant compe ive advantages over US businesses based in a country that is facing massive inflation and high interest rates driving up the cost of capital due to energy price es.
Eitehr we can lay the groundwork and get a couple of steps along the path, or we can play catch up with the companies and countries that have already done so when the need becomes apparent to even teh most head-in-the-sand types like Wild Cobra.
Good, I agree that we need to remain compe ive economically. Why does that mean that the government needs to force it to happen? If its a big deal to you, why don't you get up and go do it? Then you can be rich and in charge and become a republican.
Completely ignoring the first 10 years of the program, which is exactly what the CBO report does, isn't an assumption. It's a fundamental flaw that renders the entire analysis meaningless.
So we should ignore the multi trillion dollar price tag because "it's entirely possible" that we might come out ahead some day? When? How?It is entirely possible, and this is hinted at in this op-ed piece but never explicitly stated because they are trying to make a case against the bill and won't spell out anything that might hurt that case, that the cap and trade will actually benefit the economy in the long run and make our GDP higher than it would have been otherwise.
Cap and trade would artificially create that run-up in the middle of a recession. Is that really in our best interests? I don't think so. Cap and trade also opens up our energy costs to manipulation by speculators like we saw with the price of oil last year. Banks and hedge funds are going to manipulate our utilities and industries just like they did our mortgages.This point feeds into your "such as?" question.
There is, in my opinion, a very high likelihood that even if we did nothing at this point to encourage reduction in carbon-based non-renewable energy we would be facing massive run-ups in energy prices due to market factors in the coming years. This will likely happen even if we do the cap and trade too.
We can do that without giving American businesses a bunch of new reasons to move American jobs overseas.If we start developing a renewable energy tech base and infrastructure now, we can have years of research and development done, as well as some basic infrastruture built and good progress towards wringing out the efficiency gains that will allow us to be more insulated and prepared for these future es.
Cap and trade is going to create those same es and disruptions. Only instead of it happening some time down the road as a reaction to market forces it happens much sooner as a reaction to our government artificially creating a crisis.If we really do nothing, we can (collectively both public and privately) then scramble to do all of the research and development in a big rush while we are faced with es in energy that will make that rushed project effort all the more costly and the disruptions to our economy will happen all at once in some rather nasty shocks.
How many european nations have a cap and trade bill of their own?Europe's push for renewables now is happening. IF they do this and we don't, when the price of carbon-based fuels are ing, they will have already make themselves insulated from these costs, and will face the rather pleasant compe ive advantages over US businesses based in a country that is facing massive inflation and high interest rates driving up the cost of capital due to energy price es.
This isn't laying groundwork. This is slamming the breaks on the American economy in the middle of a recession. It's lowering the quality of life for every American by making everything they purchase more expensive. It's an incentive for companies to move American manufacturing jobs overseas where they don't have to play by these rules. It's a new way for financial ins utions to manipulate our economy. It's a crap piece of legislation and nowhere is anyone offering any evidence that it's actually going to work.Eitehr we can lay the groundwork and get a couple of steps along the path, or we can play catch up with the companies and countries that have already done so when the need becomes apparent to even teh most head-in-the-sand types like Wild Cobra.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
