I actually pay attention to your comments. Your comments give me a reason to "pause" and think from a different perspective (unlike other posts in this forum). But you are wrong in this case. You are basing your opinion on the "Liberal Spin" that is so common now. Please do some further research. Cap and Trade will SUCK - for ALL US Citizens .........
The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated - Gandhi
"Empty pockets will Allow a greater Sense of wealth...." EV/ITW
I actually pay attention to your comments. Your comments give me a reason to "pause" and think from a different perspective (unlike other posts in this forum). But you are wrong in this case. You are basing your opinion on the "Liberal Spin" that is so common now. Please do some further research. Cap and Trade will SUCK - for ALL US Citizens .........
The highest figure I've seen for your typical American family is an extra $80/month. I don't like it. I am pinching my pennies like so many others. However, I believe that in the long run this is a plan that could have a positive impact and force energy companies to be "greener" (for a lack of a better word).
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.
Okay - Let's close "Gitmo." The U.S. is now free to allow these "Terrorsts" to "shack" up in your "digs. Give an intelligent response as to what to do with these people. Hell yeah - let's put them on trial here in a US court of Law. Wow - THAT makes a lot of sense. You're smarter than most people whom hold office.
The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated - Gandhi
"Empty pockets will Allow a greater Sense of wealth...." EV/ITW
Okay - Let's close "Gitmo." The U.S. is now free to allow these "Terrorsts" to "shack" up in your "digs. Give an intelligent response as to what to do with these people. Hell yeah - let's put them on trial here in a US court of Law. Wow - THAT makes a lot of sense. You're smarter than most people whom hold office.
Uh... what's so bad about that idea? Trial and prison... sounds like a pretty decent idea for how to handle terrorists. It worked for McVeigh and the terrorist plotters in Toledo, Ohio a few years back. And it's served our country pretty well for centuries.
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.
Yes, of course it's a tax hike on energy, that's the point.
It's not going to cost that much per year at all, and it how much it will cost people will depend on what part of the country they live in.
This program is definitely not the best cap-and-trade one could come up with. There is a concession to merchant coal generators that seems unnecessary. It is a step in the right direction though, and a lot of the other provisions of the bill that aren't directly related to the cap-and-trade program are very good (energy efficiency, national RPS, etc).
Okay - Let's close "Gitmo." The U.S. is now free to allow these "Terrorsts" to "shack" up in your "digs. Give an intelligent response as to what to do with these people. Hell yeah - let's put them on trial here in a US court of Law. Wow - THAT makes a lot of sense. You're smarter than most people whom hold office.
Uh... what's so bad about that idea? Trial and prison... sounds like a pretty decent idea for how to handle terrorists. It worked for McVeigh and the terrorist plotters in Toledo, Ohio a few years back. And it's served our country pretty well for centuries.
I sorta agree. But...what about the troops whom gave their lives fighting and at some point - capturing them. I think "trying" them in a U.S. Court is a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. If tax-payer dollars need to spent - then I think "Military Tibunals" are in order. These people ARE NOT U.S. Citizens and should NOT be treated as such. Oh yeah - forgot - I'm on a liberal websight - where everyone whom comes to this county "illegally" should be considered a U.S. Citizen. I like Texas more and more every day.
The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated - Gandhi
"Empty pockets will Allow a greater Sense of wealth...." EV/ITW
I sorta agree. But...what about the troops whom gave their lives fighting and at some point - capturing them. I think "trying" them in a U.S. Court is a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. If tax-payer dollars need to spent - then I think "Military Tibunals" are in order. These people ARE NOT U.S. Citizens and should NOT be treated as such. Oh yeah - forgot - I'm on a liberal websight - where everyone whom comes to this county "illegally" should be considered a U.S. Citizen. I like Texas more and more every day.
I'm ok with military tribunals, though that's taxpayer money too you know. What I'm not ok with is tossing them into nameless prisons not subject to any sort of oversight or accountability to be held and interrogated for years on end without even telling them what they're accused of or allowing them any sort of counsel or defense. If they're really terrorists, put them on trial somewhere, let them state their case, and if they're guilty, convict and sentence them. If we're doing our job and only rounding up guilty people, then this should not be a problem.
Okay - Let's close "Gitmo." The U.S. is now free to allow these "Terrorsts" to "shack" up in your "digs. Give an intelligent response as to what to do with these people. Hell yeah - let's put them on trial here in a US court of Law. Wow - THAT makes a lot of sense. You're smarter than most people whom hold office.
Uh... what's so bad about that idea? Trial and prison... sounds like a pretty decent idea for how to handle terrorists. It worked for McVeigh and the terrorist plotters in Toledo, Ohio a few years back. And it's served our country pretty well for centuries.
I sorta agree. But...what about the troops whom gave their lives fighting and at some point - capturing them. I think "trying" them in a U.S. Court is a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. If tax-payer dollars need to spent - then I think "Military Tibunals" are in order. These people ARE NOT U.S. Citizens and should NOT be treated as such. Oh yeah - forgot - I'm on a liberal websight - where everyone whom comes to this county "illegally" should be considered a U.S. Citizen. I like Texas more and more every day.
yeah they are not citizens, so lets just hold them indefinitely without charges. they are not american so they have no right to due process... :roll: :roll: :roll:
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Okay - Let's close "Gitmo." The U.S. is now free to allow these "Terrorsts" to "shack" up in your "digs. Give an intelligent response as to what to do with these people. Hell yeah - let's put them on trial here in a US court of Law. Wow - THAT makes a lot of sense. You're smarter than most people whom hold office.
Uh... what's so bad about that idea? Trial and prison... sounds like a pretty decent idea for how to handle terrorists. It worked for McVeigh and the terrorist plotters in Toledo, Ohio a few years back. And it's served our country pretty well for centuries.
I sorta agree. But...what about the troops whom gave their lives fighting and at some point - capturing them. I think "trying" them in a U.S. Court is a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. If tax-payer dollars need to spent - then I think "Military Tibunals" are in order. These people ARE NOT U.S. Citizens and should NOT be treated as such. Oh yeah - forgot - I'm on a liberal websight - where everyone whom comes to this county "illegally" should be considered a U.S. Citizen. I like Texas more and more every day.
well, maybe Obama can be a member of the World Court again, they could be tried there but we refuse to acknowledge them since they found us guilty of basically terrorism by attacking Nicaragua because they wouldn't do what we wanted (like block and mine their bays and harbors when they had no navy but just to stop any supplies coming in
i think this is a very weak bill and shows there is no real change to be had from either the executive or legislative branches. sure, it makes *some* minor progress but gives in way more than it makes a positive impact. i'm hesitant to rely on fining companies that violate the laws because as it is a very few ever pay those fines anyway, it's more for show. Exxon never even finished paying and cleaning what they were supposed to over the Valdeez! They disabled the spill alarms on tankers and other cutbacks to save money, as if they don't make enough, and they get a public slap on the wrist and the show of heavy fines and damages and it's mostly for show, to appease the public
don't compete; coexist
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'
Of course The EPA is going to say that. They're part of Obama's administration. Maybe not yours but $150 is a lot of money to some families
...
Facts only:
$150.00 per year is $.41 per day.
$175.00 per year is $.47 per day.
So, in the course of a day... how can I cut out 41 to 47 cents per day? That Snickers bar or bag 'o chips i get out of the vending machine sets me back .85 per day. I think i can afford to cut that down to one, every other day. And i'm a family of one.
...
I don't know about the rest of you... but, if the cost of half a snickers bar per day will actually get us on track to real energy efficiency... I'm willing to give it a shot.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Of course The EPA is going to say that. They're part of Obama's administration. Maybe not yours but $150 is a lot of money to some families
...
Facts only:
$150.00 per year is $.41 per day.
$175.00 per year is $.47 per day.
So, in the course of a day... how can I cut out 41 to 47 cents per day? That Snickers bar or bag 'o chips i get out of the vending machine sets me back .85 per day. I think i can afford to cut that down to one, every other day. And i'm a family of one.
...
I don't know about the rest of you... but, if the cost of half a snickers bar per day will actually get us on track to real energy efficiency... I'm willing to give it a shot.
thanks for the info Cosmo.
i can definitely afford that. if you cut out one meal of fast food a week it will save you $40 a month to pay towards it.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Of course The EPA is going to say that. They're part of Obama's administration. Maybe not yours but $150 is a lot of money to some families
...
Facts only:
$150.00 per year is $.41 per day.
$175.00 per year is $.47 per day.
So, in the course of a day... how can I cut out 41 to 47 cents per day? That Snickers bar or bag 'o chips i get out of the vending machine sets me back .85 per day. I think i can afford to cut that down to one, every other day. And i'm a family of one.
...
I don't know about the rest of you... but, if the cost of half a snickers bar per day will actually get us on track to real energy efficiency... I'm willing to give it a shot.
thanks for the info Cosmo.
i can definitely afford that. if you cut out one meal of fast food a week it will save you $40 a month to pay towards it.
I don't think the question should be if you can do it but, rather, should you be coerced by the federal government to do it? This is where the problem lies for many people.
i can definitely afford that. if you cut out one meal of fast food a week it will save you $40 a month to pay towards it.
I don't think the question should be if you can do it but, rather, should you be coerced by the federal government to do it? This is where the problem lies for many people.
Yes, and will it actually be as cheap as they say it's going to be? I sincerely doubt it. What reason do we have to believe anything our government tells us anymore? How many times do we have to be lied to before we put a stop to the bullshit? Even if they weren't outright lying about the cost, what are the chances that they've underestimated the costs completely on accident? Government on all levels have proven time and time again that budget planning is NEVER their strong point. Let's face it, they are being optimistic, as they always are when talking about taxes and costing people / companies' money. $150 a year is an absolute best case scenario.
Everyone who is talking about we the people cutting back (no matter how big or how small) is missing the point. Why is it always us who have to concede when our government spends our money about as frugally as the crackhead living under the interstate overpass would? Until the government (or the junkie) can prove that they can spend our money wisely, there is no sense in giving them any more.
Also, I would like to add that no true environmentalist should be in favor of this bill. It essentially makes pollution OK if the company in question can pay for it, and buy more carbon credits. Who are the costs going to get passed onto? The consumer. It's kind of like how the Yankees exceed the MLB salary cap every year, and pay the luxury tax. Raise the cost of caps, tickets, concessions, charge more for advertising, and it pays for itself. That is, THE CONSUMER pays for it.
we'll continue to pay more no matter how cheap/expensive it is, the energy industry will continue to post profits and the environment will getting fucked.
it was a near worthless idea when Gore did it and it's just as ridiculous now. it's the appearance of something being done while keeping the racket going that is government
don't compete; coexist
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'
... Yes, and will it actually be as cheap as they say it's going to be? I sincerely doubt it. What reason do we have to believe anything our government tells us anymore? How many times do we have to be lied to before we put a stop to the bullshit? Even if they weren't outright lying about the cost, what are the chances that they've underestimated the costs completely on accident? Government on all levels have proven time and time again that budget planning is NEVER their strong point. Let's face it, they are being optimistic, as they always are when talking about taxes and costing people / companies' money. $150 a year is an absolute best case scenario.
Everyone who is talking about we the people cutting back (no matter how big or how small) is missing the point. Why is it always us who have to concede when our government spends our money about as frugally as the crackhead living under the interstate overpass would? Until the government (or the junkie) can prove that they can spend our money wisely, there is no sense in giving them any more.
Also, I would like to add that no true environmentalist should be in favor of this bill. It essentially makes pollution OK if the company in question can pay for it, and buy more carbon credits. Who are the costs going to get passed onto? The consumer. It's kind of like how the Yankees exceed the MLB salary cap every year, and pay the luxury tax. Raise the cost of caps, tickets, concessions, charge more for advertising, and it pays for itself. That is, THE CONSUMER pays for it.
...
How do we know whether or not it will work or fail? We don't. And is government inept? Yes... but, isn't big business just as inept? You need not look any further than General Motors, Chrysler, AIG, Lehmann Brothers, Bear Sterns, Enron, et al... The Private Sector has proven that it is incapable of regulating itself and the cosequences of their mismanagement has lead us to the brink of financial ruin. Maybe they ARE capable... but, they have a proven track record that they are unwilling.
We pay... either way. We either pay in taxes to the Government or profits to the Energy company executives. We have been conditioned to get all up in arms when it's taxes... but, why do we continually just pay the companies without protest when it's rate hikes? Either way, it's money out of pocket.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
... Yes, and will it actually be as cheap as they say it's going to be? I sincerely doubt it. What reason do we have to believe anything our government tells us anymore? How many times do we have to be lied to before we put a stop to the bullshit? Even if they weren't outright lying about the cost, what are the chances that they've underestimated the costs completely on accident? Government on all levels have proven time and time again that budget planning is NEVER their strong point. Let's face it, they are being optimistic, as they always are when talking about taxes and costing people / companies' money. $150 a year is an absolute best case scenario.
Everyone who is talking about we the people cutting back (no matter how big or how small) is missing the point. Why is it always us who have to concede when our government spends our money about as frugally as the crackhead living under the interstate overpass would? Until the government (or the junkie) can prove that they can spend our money wisely, there is no sense in giving them any more.
Also, I would like to add that no true environmentalist should be in favor of this bill. It essentially makes pollution OK if the company in question can pay for it, and buy more carbon credits. Who are the costs going to get passed onto? The consumer. It's kind of like how the Yankees exceed the MLB salary cap every year, and pay the luxury tax. Raise the cost of caps, tickets, concessions, charge more for advertising, and it pays for itself. That is, THE CONSUMER pays for it.
...
How do we know whether or not it will work or fail? We don't. And is government inept? Yes... but, isn't big business just as inept? You need not look any further than General Motors, Chrysler, AIG, Lehmann Brothers, Bear Sterns, Enron, et al... The Private Sector has proven that it is incapable of regulating itself and the cosequences of their mismanagement has lead us to the brink of financial ruin. Maybe they ARE capable... but, they have a proven track record that they are unwilling.
We pay... either way. We either pay in taxes to the Government or profits to the Energy company executives. We have been conditioned to get all up in arms when it's taxes... but, why do we continually just pay the companies without protest when it's rate hikes? Either way, it's money out of pocket.
Agree 100%. That's why both completely inept government and big business (or any business outside of competitive public bidding) should not be allowed to merge EVER. GM and Chrysler should have failed decades ago. Government regulations that permitted banks and investment firms to operate on fractional reserves, create derivatives, etc... are exactly what permits big business to grow to unsustainable size in the first place. When they are on the verge of failing, the end results are catastrophic, so what choices are we left with? Bail them out, or watch the whole (fake) "backbone" of our economy come crashing down?
And of course we get all up in arms when it comes in the form of taxes. It's always a tax. Who's at the top of this pyramid with cap and trade? It's the government. Companies will be pocketing their fair share as well, but you can't take away the fact that it begins with the government.
And again, on principle, this may not even eliminate our environmental problems. Someone posted what Kucinich said about the whole thing, I like his take on it, for the most part.
... Yes, and will it actually be as cheap as they say it's going to be? I sincerely doubt it. What reason do we have to believe anything our government tells us anymore? How many times do we have to be lied to before we put a stop to the bullshit? Even if they weren't outright lying about the cost, what are the chances that they've underestimated the costs completely on accident? Government on all levels have proven time and time again that budget planning is NEVER their strong point. Let's face it, they are being optimistic, as they always are when talking about taxes and costing people / companies' money. $150 a year is an absolute best case scenario.
Everyone who is talking about we the people cutting back (no matter how big or how small) is missing the point. Why is it always us who have to concede when our government spends our money about as frugally as the crackhead living under the interstate overpass would? Until the government (or the junkie) can prove that they can spend our money wisely, there is no sense in giving them any more.
Also, I would like to add that no true environmentalist should be in favor of this bill. It essentially makes pollution OK if the company in question can pay for it, and buy more carbon credits. Who are the costs going to get passed onto? The consumer. It's kind of like how the Yankees exceed the MLB salary cap every year, and pay the luxury tax. Raise the cost of caps, tickets, concessions, charge more for advertising, and it pays for itself. That is, THE CONSUMER pays for it.
...
How do we know whether or not it will work or fail? We don't. And is government inept? Yes... but, isn't big business just as inept? You need not look any further than General Motors, Chrysler, AIG, Lehmann Brothers, Bear Sterns, Enron, et al... The Private Sector has proven that it is incapable of regulating itself and the cosequences of their mismanagement has lead us to the brink of financial ruin. Maybe they ARE capable... but, they have a proven track record that they are unwilling.
We pay... either way. We either pay in taxes to the Government or profits to the Energy company executives. We have been conditioned to get all up in arms when it's taxes... but, why do we continually just pay the companies without protest when it's rate hikes? Either way, it's money out of pocket.
Agree 100%. That's why both completely inept government and big business (or any business outside of competitive public bidding) should not be allowed to merge EVER. GM and Chrysler should have failed decades ago. Government regulations that permitted banks and investment firms to operate on fractional reserves, create derivatives, etc... are exactly what permits big business to grow to unsustainable size in the first place. When they are on the verge of failing, the end results are catastrophic, so what choices are we left with? Bail them out, or watch the whole (fake) "backbone" of our economy come crashing down?
And of course we get all up in arms when it comes in the form of taxes. It's always a tax. Who's at the top of this pyramid with cap and trade? It's the government. Companies will be pocketing their fair share as well, but you can't take away the fact that it begins with the government.
And again, on principle, this may not even eliminate our environmental problems. Someone posted what Kucinich said about the whole thing, I like his take on it, for the most part.
You guys both hit the nail on the fucking head so hard...so hard
Comments
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
I actually pay attention to your comments. Your comments give me a reason to "pause" and think from a different perspective (unlike other posts in this forum). But you are wrong in this case. You are basing your opinion on the "Liberal Spin" that is so common now. Please do some further research. Cap and Trade will SUCK - for ALL US Citizens .........
"Empty pockets will Allow a greater Sense of wealth...." EV/ITW
The highest figure I've seen for your typical American family is an extra $80/month. I don't like it. I am pinching my pennies like so many others. However, I believe that in the long run this is a plan that could have a positive impact and force energy companies to be "greener" (for a lack of a better word).
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Okay - Let's close "Gitmo." The U.S. is now free to allow these "Terrorsts" to "shack" up in your "digs. Give an intelligent response as to what to do with these people. Hell yeah - let's put them on trial here in a US court of Law. Wow - THAT makes a lot of sense. You're smarter than most people whom hold office.
"Empty pockets will Allow a greater Sense of wealth...." EV/ITW
Uh... what's so bad about that idea? Trial and prison... sounds like a pretty decent idea for how to handle terrorists. It worked for McVeigh and the terrorist plotters in Toledo, Ohio a few years back. And it's served our country pretty well for centuries.
Yes, of course it's a tax hike on energy, that's the point.
It's not going to cost that much per year at all, and it how much it will cost people will depend on what part of the country they live in.
This program is definitely not the best cap-and-trade one could come up with. There is a concession to merchant coal generators that seems unnecessary. It is a step in the right direction though, and a lot of the other provisions of the bill that aren't directly related to the cap-and-trade program are very good (energy efficiency, national RPS, etc).
I sorta agree. But...what about the troops whom gave their lives fighting and at some point - capturing them. I think "trying" them in a U.S. Court is a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. If tax-payer dollars need to spent - then I think "Military Tibunals" are in order. These people ARE NOT U.S. Citizens and should NOT be treated as such. Oh yeah - forgot - I'm on a liberal websight - where everyone whom comes to this county "illegally" should be considered a U.S. Citizen. I like Texas more and more every day.
"Empty pockets will Allow a greater Sense of wealth...." EV/ITW
I'm ok with military tribunals, though that's taxpayer money too you know. What I'm not ok with is tossing them into nameless prisons not subject to any sort of oversight or accountability to be held and interrogated for years on end without even telling them what they're accused of or allowing them any sort of counsel or defense. If they're really terrorists, put them on trial somewhere, let them state their case, and if they're guilty, convict and sentence them. If we're doing our job and only rounding up guilty people, then this should not be a problem.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
well, maybe Obama can be a member of the World Court again, they could be tried there but we refuse to acknowledge them since they found us guilty of basically terrorism by attacking Nicaragua because they wouldn't do what we wanted (like block and mine their bays and harbors when they had no navy but just to stop any supplies coming in
i think this is a very weak bill and shows there is no real change to be had from either the executive or legislative branches. sure, it makes *some* minor progress but gives in way more than it makes a positive impact. i'm hesitant to rely on fining companies that violate the laws because as it is a very few ever pay those fines anyway, it's more for show. Exxon never even finished paying and cleaning what they were supposed to over the Valdeez! They disabled the spill alarms on tankers and other cutbacks to save money, as if they don't make enough, and they get a public slap on the wrist and the show of heavy fines and damages and it's mostly for show, to appease the public
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'
Facts only:
$150.00 per year is $.41 per day.
$175.00 per year is $.47 per day.
So, in the course of a day... how can I cut out 41 to 47 cents per day? That Snickers bar or bag 'o chips i get out of the vending machine sets me back .85 per day. I think i can afford to cut that down to one, every other day. And i'm a family of one.
...
I don't know about the rest of you... but, if the cost of half a snickers bar per day will actually get us on track to real energy efficiency... I'm willing to give it a shot.
Hail, Hail!!!
i can definitely afford that. if you cut out one meal of fast food a week it will save you $40 a month to pay towards it.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I don't think the question should be if you can do it but, rather, should you be coerced by the federal government to do it? This is where the problem lies for many people.
Yes, and will it actually be as cheap as they say it's going to be? I sincerely doubt it. What reason do we have to believe anything our government tells us anymore? How many times do we have to be lied to before we put a stop to the bullshit? Even if they weren't outright lying about the cost, what are the chances that they've underestimated the costs completely on accident? Government on all levels have proven time and time again that budget planning is NEVER their strong point. Let's face it, they are being optimistic, as they always are when talking about taxes and costing people / companies' money. $150 a year is an absolute best case scenario.
Everyone who is talking about we the people cutting back (no matter how big or how small) is missing the point. Why is it always us who have to concede when our government spends our money about as frugally as the crackhead living under the interstate overpass would? Until the government (or the junkie) can prove that they can spend our money wisely, there is no sense in giving them any more.
Also, I would like to add that no true environmentalist should be in favor of this bill. It essentially makes pollution OK if the company in question can pay for it, and buy more carbon credits. Who are the costs going to get passed onto? The consumer. It's kind of like how the Yankees exceed the MLB salary cap every year, and pay the luxury tax. Raise the cost of caps, tickets, concessions, charge more for advertising, and it pays for itself. That is, THE CONSUMER pays for it.
it was a near worthless idea when Gore did it and it's just as ridiculous now. it's the appearance of something being done while keeping the racket going that is government
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'
How do we know whether or not it will work or fail? We don't. And is government inept? Yes... but, isn't big business just as inept? You need not look any further than General Motors, Chrysler, AIG, Lehmann Brothers, Bear Sterns, Enron, et al... The Private Sector has proven that it is incapable of regulating itself and the cosequences of their mismanagement has lead us to the brink of financial ruin. Maybe they ARE capable... but, they have a proven track record that they are unwilling.
We pay... either way. We either pay in taxes to the Government or profits to the Energy company executives. We have been conditioned to get all up in arms when it's taxes... but, why do we continually just pay the companies without protest when it's rate hikes? Either way, it's money out of pocket.
Hail, Hail!!!
Agree 100%. That's why both completely inept government and big business (or any business outside of competitive public bidding) should not be allowed to merge EVER. GM and Chrysler should have failed decades ago. Government regulations that permitted banks and investment firms to operate on fractional reserves, create derivatives, etc... are exactly what permits big business to grow to unsustainable size in the first place. When they are on the verge of failing, the end results are catastrophic, so what choices are we left with? Bail them out, or watch the whole (fake) "backbone" of our economy come crashing down?
And of course we get all up in arms when it comes in the form of taxes. It's always a tax. Who's at the top of this pyramid with cap and trade? It's the government. Companies will be pocketing their fair share as well, but you can't take away the fact that it begins with the government.
And again, on principle, this may not even eliminate our environmental problems. Someone posted what Kucinich said about the whole thing, I like his take on it, for the most part.
You guys both hit the nail on the fucking head so hard...so hard