Reply With Quote
Well Sportcamper, you can always train your car.
Nobody should trust what the New York Times says. They filter the truth and spin it.
It really would be helpful if people did more than just quote an article also. You obviously just believe what the NY Times says. How about simple facts like what the bill is and what amendments altered it?
The Bill is the one I mentioned earlier. HR-6. Now it will have to go back to the house for approval.
Later, it is mentioned “blocked by republicans.” How many republicans had to vote yo get this? OK, 43 democrats voted yes and 20 Republicans. Both independents also voted yes.The vote, 65 to 27, was a major defeat for car manufacturers, which had fought for a much smaller increase in fuel economy standards and is expected to keep fighting as the House takes up the issue.
Oh really? Are you that blind to the facts? You believe what the New Your Slimes has to say? Facts:But Senate Democrats also fell short of their own goals. In a victory for the oil industry, Republican lawmakers successfully blocked a crucial component of the Democratic plan that would have raised taxes on oil companies by about $32 billion and used the money on tax breaks for wind power, solar power, ethanol and other renewable fuels.
The tax increase was part of the house version.
To get the tax out, a majority of the senate had to approve the vote! Not a filibuster like implied by the Slimes.
Same thing, part of the original package. Therefore, this was a majority vote to remove it!Republicans also blocked a provision of the legislation that would have required electric utilities to greatly increase the share of power they get from renewable sources of energy.
Boutons, stop being a Kool-Aid drinking lemming. If you look at the annual statements, you will see that oil companies already pay near 35% taxes. That is the corporate tax rate. $Billions would hardly be accurate. Maybe one or two.As a result, Senate Democrats had to settle for a bill that calls for a vast expansion of renewable fuels over the next decade — to 36 billion gallons a year of alternatives to gasoline — but does little to actually promote those fuels through tax breaks or other subsidies.
OK, so what will happen?If the Senate bill becomes law, car manufacturers would have to increase the average mileage of new cars and light trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, compared with roughly 25 miles per gallon today.
Bans on non-business related pickups and SUVs?
Carbon Fiber body parts for cars?
Hybrids for all cars causing massive disposal problems?
Congress votes on this stuff without understanding the ramifications, or do they? At least they can reverse this legislation years to come.
With a vote of 57 to 38, the Senate came three votes short of the number needed to cut off a filibuster on the tax package. Republican opponents argued that tax increases on oil companies would reduce exploration for oil and lead to higher prices on gasoline.
I didn’t see such a recorded vote on the record. Where did he get that BS?
Really? This is oart of the house version, therefore, the senate voted to remove it!Republicans also blocked another central goal, known as the Renewable Portfolio Standard, that would have required electric utilities to produce at least 15 percent of their power from renewable fuels by the year 2020.
“Republicans continue to pander to the big oil and energy companies,”
And it would do just that.Oil executives and their lobbyists had fanned out across Congress in recent days and run frequent ads in newspapers, all delivering a carefully coordinated message: higher taxes on oil production would lead to higher gasoline prices.
Why can’t the NY Slimes tell us the truth here?Republican opponents of the tax package said it was unfair to oil companies, would reduce investment in exploration and would ultimately increase American dependence on foreign oil.
“Instead of reducing gasoline prices, this is going to add to add to the cost of gasoline,” said Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona.
Committee, pleaded with members of his party to drop their opposition.
[QUOTE]“We’re taxing the oil industry to get a renewable energy industry started,” Mr. Grassley said on the Senate floor. “I hope you’ll understand that God only made so much fossil fuel and that there’s got to be a follow-on if we’re going to have growth in our economy.”[/URL]And we only have so much farm land to grow corn which takes the equivalent energy of 7 gallons to make 10 gallons!
Ethanol is ridiculous to make in quan y outside the equatorial belt! We need to use solar power to make it efficient. We only have so much land we can devote for the crops and power requirements. Otherwise, we are putting far more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere from making and burning ethanol than from burning gasoline!
Links:
HR 6
Amendments to HR 6. Actually status page, click on Amendments.
Well Sportcamper, you can always train your car.
WC's ideological brain-masters tell him that NYT and WP are totally, eternally lying.
The article was about the ing SENATE vote, not about the HOUSE vote. Why are you selecting the House to try to contradict the SENATE vote?
The pre-Nov06 Repug Congress has already approved 10s of $Bs of subsidies to the ethanol industry (which is totally stupid), while imposing $1.50/gal tariffs on ethanol from Brazil, killing the importation of Brazilain sugar-cane ethanol. How's that for free-market laissez-faire?
Yes, I am. They twist the truth to the point of a lie at the least.
Yes it was about the senate. Are you daft? I pointed out lies about what was said to be "blocked" These provisions were already in the house bill when it was sent to the senate. Therefore, for the provisions to not exist, the senate had to vote them out. Not block their passage.
List please.
A subsidy is money awarded to do a certain action. Liberals like to call tax breaks a subsidy, but they are not.
Ever read the cons ution? There are words related to tariffs! A tariff is a means of keeping us from being flooded with cheap goods and destroying our industries. Aren't you one who is against the outsourcing of jobs and manufacturing? Now you want Brazilian ethanol in cheaply, rather than make it ourselves?
What about the US jobs it will create?
I don't know how things stand now, but originally, this tariff was for sugar to keep US cane growers from losing their farms with cheaper sugar imports. Since this ethanol comes from the sugar, I believe the tariffs on the sugar transfers over.
Consider this too. If we started importing ethanol from Brazil, how many more thousands of square miles of rainforest would be cut down to meet the demand? One key difference between liberals and conservatives is future thinking. We conservatives think about the impact on the future. Liberals are about what feels good and the ‘here and now’.
An advocate for Brazilian cane sugar is an unknowing advocate of cutting down the rain forests. Think about that for a moment please.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions