Cap and Trade
WaveCameCrashin
Posts: 2,929
http://www.heritage.org/Press/FactSheet/fs0034.cfm
Obama's cap and trade is nothing more than a huge tax hike on enerygy
This could cost the average family up to $3000.00 more a year to heat and cool your home.
We will also see more jobs being lost due to this
http://www.foe.org/flawed-climate-and-energy-bill-passes-house
Obama's cap and trade is nothing more than a huge tax hike on enerygy
This could cost the average family up to $3000.00 more a year to heat and cool your home.
We will also see more jobs being lost due to this
http://www.foe.org/flawed-climate-and-energy-bill-passes-house
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/sta ... st-about-/
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Well, naturally the Heritage Foundation is going to say what they did. They are the opposition to it. However, I noticed you backed down from the $3000 a year and saying that $175 is a lot to some families.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Unless of course you also want to keep your job. Some compaines will pay $500,000 or more a year on energy. Bye Bye jobs, hello Chinese workforce.
prfctlefts will respond by saying that I am simply quoting a left wing liberal website, but I present the argument here so you can decide for yourself, and feel free to correct this argument if you can:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/02/death-energy-lie/
Media Outlet Refuses To Run Republican TV Ad Filled With Misrepresentations Of Clean Energy Bill
This afternoon, Roanoke television station WDBJ-TV, announced they will be refusing to air a National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) ad attacking freshman Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA), citing factual inaccuracies. The NRCC had been planning to run television ads against Democratic members of Congress, like Perriello, who voted for the Waxman-Markey clean energy economy legislation that passed last week. After receiving information about the factual inaccuracies in the ad, the station pulled it from rotation.
For any objective observer, the the ad is pulled out of thin air. The ads erroneously state that the bill will “destroy jobs” and “cost middle-class families $1,800 a year.” According to a study by the Center for American Progress, clean energy economy legislation will create 1.7 million American jobs while simultaneously addressing climate change by capping carbon dioxide emissions. The $1,800 figure used by NRCC is also made of whole cloth. The Congressional Budget Office has scored the bill and found that by 2020, the annual cost would be about $175 per household — about a postage stamp a day. An EPA estimate of the bill found similar results, projecting the cost to be about $80 to $111 per a year.
Still refusing to accept reality, the Republican leadership is instructing its members to lie about the clean energy economy bill:
– Last week, Republican whip Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) posted a message erroneously claiming that clean energy legislation will amount to “a national energy tax of up to $3,100 on all Americans.”
– Republican leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) posted on his website that the clean energy bill will cost “$3,100 a year,” then modified that number to “$3,000 per household per year.”
– Republican conference chair Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), not to be outdone, claimed the clean energy bill would be “over $4,000 a year.”
All the numbers cited by Republicans are at least seventeen times the highest possible projection by the CBO and EPA.
Clearly, Republicans opposed to the clean energy bill seem willing to justify their opposition using outright falsehoods. But fortunately, at least some stations are not willing to propagate it.
...I was always a DeadHead, but when I first heard Winston Rodney, aka the Burning Spear, sing, I became a SpearHead too!
Obama's cap and trade legislation is the exact same thing as Al Gore's BTU tax which was the centerpiece of Clinton's 93 tax program,but he replaced it with a $.5 gasoline tax.
But
Obama cant call it a tax because that would break his pledge to us. So he calls it cap and trade
If this bill passes it will be the largest Tax increase in the history of the United States. :x
He has not kept all of his promises ... he sounds like george bush when he tries to defend holding detainees indefinitely without trial, or when he fails to end DADT NOW, or when his DOJ files briefs tryng to keep dick cheney's admission to patrick fitzgerald that he broke valerie plame's cia cover from becoming public, or when he refuses to release photos of the torture this country committed under the bush adimnistration in our names, and other things too ... what a shock. He is a politician after all, and part of the same old tired two party system that has fucked this country for decades ... that said, I was glad to vote for him and I still fucking shudder to think how much worse it would have been had that maniac mccain and that idiot palin been elected.
Now you're telling me that he is RAISING TAXES ON POLLUTERS?
Pick your battles, man...that one ain't mine.
...I was always a DeadHead, but when I first heard Winston Rodney, aka the Burning Spear, sing, I became a SpearHead too!
They can forgive him for sighning an 800 billion stimulous bill within 24hrs of reciept complete with 8,500 earmarks without having read it.they can forgive his faux pas of criticizing AIG excecutives unbridled greed for taking the bonuses that he himself unknowingly approved and signed into law.
O yeah what about aplogizing to all of europe for our arrogance,dismissiveness,and derisiveness.You know the kind that kept England and France from speaking German and incidentially cost the lives of thousands of Americans.
You can currently forgive his closure of Gitmo because those who were released and got back into the fight against us haven't killed any of their relatives.
Unemployment continues to grow. Consumer confidence continues to decline. 401k plans continue to be half of what they were a year ago.The current Budget is 3x greater than it was 6mos ago.
Gasoline is going back up.
Obama supporters can forgive him for these things and more b/c
He's not Bush .
They haven't lost their jobs yet or haven't felt the impact of his taxes yet.
Countries that pay a VAT tax now (so i hear) are having their international shipping labels printed up with VAT conversion information that converts from the shippers local currency in to IMF Special Drawing Rights (SDRs).
This is on the same page with the publicly announced plans to increase the use of the once extremely limited SDRs in to a much more "consumer" type market.
Just like with the formation of the Federal Reserve, which went hand in glove with the creation of America's income tax, the creation and empowerment of a world monetary governing (and issuing?) authority will necessarily be done in parallel with a sister tax to help defraud of and redistribute from the peoples wealth.
Go ahead and laugh.
The president of Rothschild Inc. has already publicly written an article declaring that carbon credits could pave the way for a "sustainable new world order" and that he hoped these credits could "replace gold as the world reserve currency". [i can pull the link off my old computer if anyone asks. Guardian likes to not display that article in their search, for some reason]
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Dude, when did he ever talk about a line item veto? That was struck down by the Supreme Court while CLINTON was in office. Nobody has talked about line item vetoes in a decade.
this post is really interesting to me. i just read this post nearly word for word at this link. it is the quote from Jerry from Chicago.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/30/kra ... -is-wrong/
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Obama is just horrible right, maybe. He's been in office now 6 months and in 8 GWB really kept us safe when 911 happened right! Which by far was worse than what has happened so far, as you so have stated so lighten dude.
We've been in a tailspin EVER since.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Now we know where prfctlefts hangs out when he's not on the Pearl Jam site...the Heritage Foundation!!!
...I was always a DeadHead, but when I first heard Winston Rodney, aka the Burning Spear, sing, I became a SpearHead too!
so what who cares wher i hang out where the hell do you hang out when your not here O'yeah thats right you give your free time at the abortion clinic . How's that going for ya DeadHead
Please do one post without radical generalizations of people who you disagree with...just one. Just bring a little substance to the conversation and not just a hack for your views.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
We were attacked twice on Clinton's watch do you not remember The Cole and the first WTC bombing ? Alqeda grew on Clinton's watch.And Clinton didn't do a damn thing. He had several chances to get Bin Laden and didn't. He was to busy getting a B.J in the oval office. Why don't you go back and look at all the plots and cells The Bush administration stopped since 911. To blame bush for 911 is ridiculous
To blame Clinton for 9/11 is just as ridiculous. Truth is, they both dropped the ball. You're right Clinton could have got Bin Laden...but it had nothing to do with him getting a BJ.
Your ability to resolve to personal attacks and generalizations are amazing.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
9II happened on his watch and that's a fact. To give him a free pass and that he protected us for 8 years which Cheney says repeated IS ridiculous. Bush had his same oppurtunities to get OBL in near the Afghan border and he didn't. Remember Bush said, "we're gonna smoke em out of those caves" and never came close.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
would you expect anything less from this guy? thats all he does.
by the way, whew that was hard work dodging all of those bullets at the women's clinic today.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
9II happened on his watch and that's a fact. To give him a free pass and that he protected us for 8 years which Cheney says repeated IS ridiculous. Bush had his same oppurtunities to get OBL in near the Afghan border and he didn't. Remember Bush said, "we're gonna smoke em out of those caves" and never came close.
Peace[/quote
Im not giving Bush a pass but to blame all of 911 on his administration is wrong. It's obvious you don't know or care to know the events that led up 911 or why we haven't been able or weren't able to catch OBL after 911.
maybe you could enlighten us as to why Osama bin Laden has yet to be captured. of course it wouldn't have anything to do with Bush's comments 6 months after september 11th now would it?
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." President Bush, 3/13/02
it's not our priority? interesting.
and for fucks sake learn how to use the quoting feature. it's not that hard. you've had 1008 practices.
and let's not forget when Bush took office he actually cut money from the FBI and other agencies dealing with terrorism....Clinton also had drones searching for OBL to kill him, early in Bush's first term drones found OBL but he couldn't resolve the bickering of which agency should control the kill and he got away.
it could also be pointed out under Reagan and Bush al qaeda was funded and created, OBL worked for another group until we got involved in Afghanistan then broke off to create training camps and supply routes for the mujhadeen with a generous contribution from our government (and a few others)
that said, here's another critique of the bill
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Kucini ... 6-786.html
Kucinich: "Passing a weak bill today gives us weak environmental policy tomorrow"-
"I oppose H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The reason is simple. It won't address the problem. In fact, it might make the problem worse."
"It sets targets that are too weak, especially in the short term,
and sets about meeting those targets through Enron-style accounting methods.
It gives new life to one of the primary sources of the problem that should be
on its way out"" coal "" by giving it record subsidies. And it is
rounded out with massive corporate giveaways at taxpayer expense. There is $60
billion for a single technology which may or may not work, but which enables
coal power plants to keep warming the planet at least another 20 years.
"Worse, the bill locks us into a framework that will fail.
Science tells us that immediately is not soon enough to begin repairing the
planet. Waiting another decade or more will virtually guarantee catastrophic
levels of warming. But the bill does not require any greenhouse gas reductions
beyond current levels until 2030.
"Today's bill is a fragile compromise, which leads some to
claim that we cannot do better. I respectfully submit that not only can
we do better; we have no choice but to do better. Indeed, if we pass a
bill that only creates the illusion of addressing the problem, we walk away
with only an illusion. The price for that illusion is the opportunity to take
substantive action.
"There are several aspects of the bill that are problematic.
1. Overall targets are too weak. The bill is
predicated on a target atmospheric concentration of 450 parts per million, a
target that is arguably justified in the latest report from the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, but which is already out of date. Recent science
suggests 350 parts per million is necessary to help us avoid the worst effects
of global warming.
2. The offsets undercut the emission reductions.
Offsets allow polluters to keep polluting; they are rife with fraudulent claims
of emissions reduction; they create environmental, social, and economic unintended
adverse consequences; and they codify and endorse the idea that polluters do
not have to make sacrifices to solve the problem.
3. It kicks the can down the road. By
requiring the bulk of the emissions to be carried out in the long term and
requiring few reductions in the short term, we are not only failing to take the
action when it is needed to address rapid global warming, but we are assuming
the long term targets will remain intact.
4. EPA's authority to help reduce
greenhouse gas emissions in the short- to medium-term is rescinded. It is our
best defense against a new generation of coal power plants. There is no room
for coal as a major energy source in a future with a stable climate.
5. Nuclear power is given a lifeline instead
of phasing it out. Nuclear power
is far more expensive, has major safety issues including a near release in my
own home state in 2002, and there is still no resolution to the waste problem.
A recent study by Dr. Mark Cooper showed that it would cost $1.9 trillion to
$4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than to generate
the same amount of electricity from energy efficiency and renewables.
6. Dirty Coal
is given a lifeline instead of phasing it out. Coal-based energy
destroys entire mountains, kills and injures workers at higher rates than most
other occupations, decimates ecologically sensitive wetlands and streams,
creates ponds of ash that are so toxic the Department of Homeland Security will
not disclose their locations for fear of their potential to become a terrorist
weapon, and fouls the air and water with sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, particulates,
mercury, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and thousands of other toxic
compounds that cause asthma, birth defects, learning disabilities, and
pulmonary and cardiac problems for starters. In contrast, several times more
jobs are yielded by renewable energy investments than comparable coal
investments.
7. The $60 billion allocated for Carbon Capture and
Sequestration (CCS) is triple the amount of money for basic research
and development in the bill. We should be pressuring China,
India and Russia to slow and stop their power
plants now instead of enabling their perpetuation. We cannot create that
pressure while spending unprecedented amounts on a single technology that may
or may not work. If it does not work on the necessary scale, we have then spent
10-20 years emitting more CO2, which we cannot afford to do. In addition, those
who will profit from the technology will not be viable or able to stem any
leaks from CCS facilities that may occur 50, 100, or 1000 years from now.
8. Carbon markets can and will be manipulated
using the same Wall Street sleights of hand that brought us the financial
crisis.
9. It is regressive. Free allocations doled
out with the intent of blunting the effects on those of modest means will pale
in comparison to the allocations that go to polluters and special interests. The
financial benefits of offsets and unlimited banking also tend to accrue to
large corporations. And of course, the trillion dollar carbon derivatives
market will help Wall Street investors. Much of the benefits designed to
assist consumers are passed through coal companies and other large corporations,
on whom we will rely to pass on the savings.
10. The Renewable
Electricity Standard (RES) is not an improvement. The 15% RES
standard would be achieved even if we failed to act.
11. Dirty energy options qualify as "renewable"-:
The bill allows polluting industries to qualify as "renewable energy."-
Trash incinerators not only emit greenhouse gases, but also emit highly toxic
substances. These plants disproportionately expose communities of color and
low-income to the toxics. Biomass burners that allow the use of trees as a
fuel source are also defined as "renewable."- Under the bill,
neither source of greenhouse gas emissions is counted as contributing to global
warming.
12. It undermines our bargaining position in international
negotiations in Copenhagen
and beyond. As the biggest per capita polluter, we have a responsibility to
take action that is disproportionately stronger than the actions of other
countries. It is, in fact, the best way to preserve credibility in the
international context.
13. International assistance is much less than demanded by
developing countries. Given the level of climate change that is already in the
pipeline, we are going to need to devote major resources toward adaptation. Developing
countries will need it the most, which is why they are calling for much more resources
for adaptation and technology transfer than is allocated in this bill. This
will also undercut our position in Copenhagen.
"I offered eight amendments and cosponsored two more that
collectively would have turned the bill into an acceptable starting point. All
amendments were not allowed to be offered to the full House. Three amendments
endeavored to minimize the damage that will be done by offsets, a method of
achieving greenhouse gas reductions that has already racked up a history of
failure to reduce emissions "" increasing emissions in some cases ""
while displacing people in developing countries who rely on the land for their
well being.
"Three other amendments would have made the federal government a
force for change by requiring all federal energy to eventually come from
renewable resources, by requiring the federal government to transition to
electric and plug-in hybrid cars, and by requiring the installation of solar
panels on government rooftops and parking lots. These provisions would
accelerate the transition to a green economy.
"Another amendment would have moved up the year by which
reductions of greenhouse gas emissions were required from 2030 to 2025. It
would have encouraged the efficient use of allowances and would have reduced
opportunities for speculation by reducing the emission value of an allowance by
a third each year.
"The last amendment would have removed trash incineration from the definition of
renewable energy. Trash incineration is one of the primary sources of
environmental injustice in the country. It a primary source of compounds in
the air known to cause cancer, asthma, and other chronic diseases. These
facilities are disproportionately sited in communities of color and communities
of low income. Furthermore, incinerators emit more carbon dioxide per unit of
electricity produced than coal-fired power plants.
"Passing a weak bill today gives us weak environmental policy
tomorrow,"- said Kucinich.
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
With all due respect, do your self a favor and go read the book: JAWBREAKER The attack on Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, A personal account by the CIA's key field commander by Gary Bertsen
That is if you really want to know the facts.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
We all know that OBL could have been captured at Torra Borra, and that is the basis of this book. Nothing really new there.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Haven't you ever heard the term don't judge a book by it's cover ?
Well this is one of those books