Jump to content

'We're Getting There,' House Majority Whip Says as Climate Bill Vote Nears


Auburn85

Recommended Posts

That's not the way you guys talked when Bush was elected to two terms. Just because they prefer one candidate over another doesn't mean they sign on for every hairbrained idea they come up with.

Yes and no. We all need to remember that the Republicans and their platform/proposed solutions (or lack thereof) have been rejected and voted out of office since 2006. And these weren't just marginal shifts, these were big changes. In the past two elections, Democrats have picked up 16 seats in the Senate (44 to 60) and 55 in the House of Representatives (200 to 255). In '04 the GOP and Bush carried the White House with 286 EVs compared to the Democrats and Obama's 365 EVs in '08. These aren't small potatoes or some random anomaly. The GOP was squarely clobbered almost every where except the deep south.

In fact, one of things I like most about President Obama is that he is actually moving on things he campaigned on. Walk the walk. When's the last time you could say that about a politician? There is actually a pretty cool site that is tracking Obama's top 500 campaign promises - it can be found here. A few excerpts:

- No. 258: Simplify the application process for financial aid

The Promise: "Will streamline the financial aid process by eliminating the current federal financial aid application and enabling families to apply simply by checking a box on their tax form, authorizing their tax information to be used, and eliminating the need for a separate application."

Update June 24th, 2009: Obama administration unveils work on FAFSA simplification

No. 422: Create new financial regulations

The Promise: "I'll put in place the common-sense regulations and rules of the road I've been calling for since March -- rules that will keep our market free, fair, and honest; rules that will restore accountability and responsibility in our corporate boardrooms."

Update June 18th, 2009: Obama presents detailed plan on financial regulation

No. 15: Create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners

Create a $10 billion fund to help homeowners refinance or sell their homes. "The Fund will not help speculators, people who bought vacation homes or people who falsely represented their incomes."

Complete

No. 126: Begin removing combat brigades from Iraq

"Barack Obama will work with military commanders on the ground in Iraq and in consultation with the Iraqi government to end the war safely and responsibly within 16 months."

In Process

No. 134: Send two additional brigades to Afghanistan

"As Obama removes our combat brigades from Iraq, he will send at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan, where the Taliban is resurgent. He will also provide our armed forces with the reset capability that they need. He will replace essential equipment, and he will ensure that our men and women in uniform get the care and support they have earned."

Complete

No. 175: End the use of torture

"From both a moral standpoint and a practical standpoint, torture is wrong. Barack Obama will end the use torture without exception. He also will eliminate the practice of extreme rendition, where we outsource our torture to other countries."

Complete

No. 177: Close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center

"As president, Barack Obama will close the detention facility at Guantanamo."

In Process

And as you know, Climate Change, Energy, Healthcare, Immigration and other key reform campaign promises are all in the works. So while you might not agree with every (or any) policies, it is pretty hard to find fault with him enacting a platform he laid out during the campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The American people made their decision on action regarding climate change in the 2008 elections. It was a part of Obama's and the Democratic party platform. The Democratic party was elected into power on that platform, and not following through on it would have been derelict. If you don't like it - tough, and I suggest doing your all to ensure your views are properly represented in the 2010 elections.

In addition, health care was a part of that platform so get ready for that as well.

I seem to remember the American people voting for the guy who said "95 percent of people would pay LESS taxes"...and come to find out 100 percent of people will take the brunt of this highly regressive tax. I don't see how that's in line with what he was preaching during the election.

And per your argument, since McCain was for taxing your health insurance benefits and Obama was not...I fully expect you and all the others who obviously voted against that policy by electing Obama to come out in masses and denounce it since it's been proposed.

If this is such a great thing, and all the americans BELIEVE in it...why didn't he campaign on cap & trade? Why did we hear hardly ANYTHING about it during the election? And why is this the ONLY ONLY ONLY policy he's tried to push through since he's made office that the whitehouse and the media havent been throwing ticker tape parades for in advance of a vote?

BECAUSE THEY KNOW AMERICANS DONT WANT IT. Unfortunately, they don't care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the headline on TV this morning, "Obama Pushes Senate for Quick Passage." Whenever someone urges me to make a quick decision, I think of the old adage, haste makes waste. And, I picture a car salesman.

link: http://climatedepot.com/a/1697/Climate-Dep...nd-intimidation

Climate Depot Editorial: Climate bill's passage 'an unrestrained exercise of raw political power, arm-twisting and intimidation'

No detectable climate impact: 'If we actually faced a man-made 'climate crisis', we would all be doomed'

Friday, June 26, 2009By Marc Morano – Climate Depot

Updated: June 28, 2009

The U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed global warming bill (219-212 vote) is being hailed by many as “historic” or “landmark” or “The Bill of the Century.”

But the passage of this bill does not signify any great “green revolution” or “growing” climate “awareness” on the part of Congress. Instead, the methods and manner that the Pelosi led House achieved final passage, represents nothing more than unrestrained exercise of raw political power, arm-twisting, intimidation and special interest handouts. (See: Pay offs: 'Florida Democrat won $50 million pledge of support for proposed hurricane research facility in his district')

The House of Representatives passed a bill it did not read, did not understand. A bill that is based on crumbling scientific claims and a bill that will have no detectable climate impact (assuming climate fear promoters are correct on the science and the bill is fully implemented – both implausible assumptions).

Proponents of the bill made spectacular claims in their efforts to impress the urgency of the bill on their colleagues. To illustrate just how delusional these claims became, imagine if in 1909 the U.S. Congress passed a bill attempting to predict climate, temperature and the energy mix powering our national economy in the year 2000. (not to mention sanctimonious claims about "saving the Earth.") Any such attempt would have been ridiculed, but somehow in 2009, attempting to control the economy and climate of the year 2100 is seen as reasonable by many.

'Climate Astrology': Obama claims bill will leave Earth 4 to 5 degrees cooler!

President Obama made the completely scientifically indefensible claim that the Waxman-Markey climate bill would stop global temperature increases of up to 5 degrees! Obama said on June 25, "A long-term benefit is we're leaving a planet to our children that isn't four or five degrees hotter." (How can the President of the U.S. can be so misinformed and full of such hubris that he somehow believes he can sign a bill that acts as a thermostat for Earth's temperature?

But Obama seems so imbued with his ability to control climate that during the 2008 presidential campaign he prognosticated his presidency would be "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." (For latest scientific data refuting sea level rise fears see here.) President Obama has also claimed he can "block the Sun's rays to end global warming." Sadly, this has truly become the new age of "Climate Astrology." )

Democratic Congressman G.K. Butterfield reported claim that the bill “'will literally save the planet” reveals just how out of touch scientifically, politically and economically many of the bill's supporters have become.

If we actually faced the man-made “climate crisis” proponents claim, we would all be doomed if we had to rely on this bill save us. A May 2009 scientific analysis of the bill revealed its temperature impact to be “scientifically meaningless."

Sorry Congressman Butterfield, far from “saving the planet”, this bill will instead be nothing more than all economic pain for no climate gain. (See: Analysis: Climate Bill is 'Scientifically Meaningless' – Temp Reduction By 2050 of Only 9/100 of one Degree F )

Environmentalists Oppose

Many environmental groups opposed the bill because it failed to actually reduce emissions. (See: Obama's global warming plan would result in U.S. burning MORE coal in 2020 & Greenpeace Opposes Waxman-Markey...'bill chooses politics over science' )

President Obama attempted to call the bill a job creator and proponents cited a Congressional Budget Office report to downplay the cost to Americans. But these arguments failed to hold up under the close light of scrutiny. (See: Rebuttal: Obama Tries to Sell Cap-And-Tax as a Jobs Bill & WSJ: Climate bill would be 'biggest tax in American history')

Obama's own words belied his claims. In January 2008, then Senator Obama bluntly said, "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."

Even fellow Democrats failed to parrot these mythical claims that the bill is a low cost job creator. Democrat Congressman John Dingell of Michigan was blunt, calling Cap and trade a "great big" tax in April.

Obama advisor Warren Buffett also failed to tow the rhetorical line on the climate bill. Buffet came out strongly opposed to cap and trade, saying it would be “a huge, regressive tax.” In addition, the bill was called "immoral" by civil rights leader Roy Innis of the Congress of Racial Equality because of the "disproportionate and negative impact on poor and working-class families."

Perhaps Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels summed up the cap-and-trade bill the best. Daniels said in May, "A lot of people will get filthy rich doing nothing for the environment." (Many are well on their way these carbon riches, see Climate Depot's exclusive May 2, 2009 report: Al Gore's quest to become world's first 'Carbon Billionaire')

The climate bill now moves to the Senate where it faces a much tougher road ahead. The best news of the climate bill's passage is that the American public, which has wholeheartedly rejected man-made global warming fears, will now be awakened to what their representatives in Washington are up to.

Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., a member of the Congressional Black Caucus who voted against the bill, realized Americans were not concerned about global warming, saying: “There is no public outcry to pass this legislation. It's an institutional push.”

Democrat Congressman Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania reported his constituent calls were “running 9-1 against' the climate bill. Speaker Pelosi admitted the Capitol saw voters "jamming the lines"' to protest climate bill and the Capitol phone switchboard "went down" as voters dialed "to voice their opposition to the bill."

American People 'Get it'

Current polling data reveals that the American people “get it” when it comes to man-made global warming fears. Given the wealth of recent polling data showing Americans are growing increasingly skeptical, Congressmen and Senators are simply not hearing any clamor from voters to "act" to "solve" global warming.

In fact, the opposite is true, voters are rebelling against the unfounded climate fears and the so-called "solutions" in growing numbers. Below is a small sampling of recent polling data on global warming.

1) Gallup survey found global warming ranked dead last in the U.S. among ENVIRONMENTAL issues – March 2009

2) Gallup Poll Editor: Gore has 'Failed' -- 'The public is just not that concerned' about global warming – May 2009

3) Zobgy Poll: Only 30% of Americans support cap-and-trade -- 57% oppose – April 2009

4) "Gallup Poll: Record-High 41% of Americans Now Say Global Warming is Exaggerated" - March 11, 2009

5) Rasmussen Poll found Only 34% Now Blame Humans for Global Warming - 'Lowest finding yet' -- 'reversal from a year ago!'

6) Rasmussen Reports: Congress Pushes Cap and Trade, But Just 24% Know What It Is - May 11, 2009

Now that the bill has cleared the house and heads to the Senate (where they will be preparing their own version of a cap-and-trade bill) the American people will awake to the reality that this purely climate symbolic bill with real economic and lifestyle impacts may actually become law.

An American public that is aware of a “non-solution” global warming bill has the potential to literally shut down Washington with phone calls, emails, faxes and protests. Thus far, global warming bills have been a distant possibility somewhere in the future. With the passage of this bill, it is now game on.

Despite the American people's rejection of warming fears and climate taxes, Congress may persist in pushing them for other non-scientific reasons. Hint, hint. See: Dem. Senator calls cap-and-trade 'the most significant revenue-generating proposal of our time.'

19th Century Living

Beyond just economics, lifestyles changes will be in order under the new climate regime. As a June 7, 2009 Washington Post editorial stated: “Why does Congress, and not the market, need to dictate these changes?” The Post noted the climate bill “contains regulations on everything from light bulb standards to specs on hot tubs; it will reshape America's economy.” Also see: 19th Century Living: Under climate plan 'Americans allowed to emit same carbon volumes as citizens did in 1867')

In May, House speaker Nancy Pelosi declared “Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory” in order to battle global warming and reduce our carbon footprints.

As MIT scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen has noted: "He who controls carbon controls life. It is a bureaucrat's dream to control carbon dioxide." Washington is a field of dreams right now for bureaucrats.

Even Warming Fear Promoters Oppose

In addition, even the two strongest proponents of man-made global warming fears – NASA's James Hansen and UK's James Lovelock -- are now ridiculing the Congressional cap-and-trade approach as “ineffectual” and “verging on a gigantic scam.” Adding to that, Green Party presidential nominee Ralph Nader has also voiced opposition to this bill, saying, "I'm really astonished... I mean, it's not going to work. It's too complex. It's too easily manipulated politically."

Former progressive Democrat Presidential candidate and Congressman Dennis Kucinich also opposed the bill, warning: "It might make the problem [of global warming] worse." (Also, there were opposing editorials in unexpected places: See: 'Too big, too fast' Obama' hometown paper - Chicago Tribune - rejects climate bill! 'House members should vote no' & Washington Post: 'We think it's too soon to settle for something that falls so far short of ideal' & Denver Post: Climate bill's 'goals exist in fantasy...Not 'way to go about it' )

Remember, these are the words of scientists and activists who believe in a looming human caused climate “crisis.”

Americans are becoming aware that the debate is not "over" as more than 700 prominent international scientists publicly dissenting, including many who are reversing their views on climate fears and declaring themselves skeptical. Americans are becoming aware that there has been no significant global warming since 1995, no warming since 1998 and global cooling for the past few years.

'Climate Fears RIP...for 30 years!?'

New peer-reviewed scientific studies now predict a continued lack of global warming for up to three decades as natural climate factors dominate. (See: Climate Fears RIP...for 30 years!? - Global Warming could stop 'for up to 30 years! Warming 'On Hold?...'Could go into hiding for decades' study finds – Discovery.com – March 2, 2009 )

This means that today's high school kids being forced to watch Al Gore's “An Inconvenient Truth” – some of them 4 times in 4 different classes – will be nearly eligible for AARP (age 50) retirement group membership by the time warming resumes if these new studies turn out to be correct. (Editor's Note: Claims that warming will “resume” due to explosive heat in the "pipeline" have also been thoroughly debunked. See: Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. 'There is no warming in the pipeline' )

'Climate change issue is about to fall apart'

Many scientists are now realizing that the UN IPCC and the promoters of man-made climate fear are in a “panic” about the lack of global warming, the growing number of scientific defectors and sinking public support. South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander wrote in March 2009, “'The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart...Heads will roll!”

It is no wonder that the environmental movement is urging its troops to no longer use the term “global warming,” as temperatures fail to cooperate. (See: NYT obtains enviro strategy memo: Stop use of term global warming! )

As Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal noted in a June 26, 2009 article, the “Democrats are attempting to “quickly jam the climate bill through Congress because global warming tide is shifting.” The article noted that the “Scientific debate roaring back to life” as the “number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.”

Key Questions for Voters to ask Senators

As the Senate considers global warming cap-and-trade legislation that will raise energy prices during a massive economic downturn, curious voters will soon be asking their Senators the following basic questions:

1) What impact will this bill have on temperatures? (Answer: "Meaningless")

2) What will the bill cost? (Answer: Trillions)

3) Why are you voting for a bill that will have huge economic impacts and harm the poor and seniors on fixed incomes the most -- but will not have a measurable climate impact?

4) Why are more and more scientists publicly rejecting man-made climate fears and why has the Earth failed to warm as predicted?

The answers to the above questions will likely cause massive angst with many Democrats, particularly in rust belt states.

These questions will have to be answered as all eyes turn to the U.S. Senate. But, never underestimate the ability of Congress to offer non-solutions to problems that don't even exist.

Stay tuned...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This bill was another 1200 page document. Wonder if everybody read it.

Unfortunate that this was another one that was not posted 5 days in advance like Obama promised.

So, where along the line does the bill suddenly expand by 300 pages? According to the New York Times, the various committee chairs held behind the scenes meetings and hashed out a compromise with no allowance for public input. (What lobbyists were involved in those meetings?) And now we are expecting a Friday vote on a bill that has had no public hearing in a committee with jurisdiction over it and that is not yet available in the main engine of public disclosure, THOMAS.

Why the shroud of secrecy like the other bills? Why aren't they encouraging public input or discussion? Why are they voting on 1200 page bills without any time to provide a counter argument?

Thus, the final version of this bill will likely only be available for less than 24 hours.

http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2009/06...and-trade-bill/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell, I wonder if anybody read it.

They read "Climate Change" and rubber stamped it.

They didn't solicit the opinion of the American people, they didn't listen to any of the dissenting opinions in the house, and they certainly didn't provide enough lead time for everyone involved to read the whole thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys - the bill has made it through one part of Congress. The Senate will likely have changes, it will then go to committee, where it will likely be re-worked, it will then have to be voted on again, etc. etc.

Heck some are speculating it won't even make it to a vote in the Senate. To state the obvious, it's a long way from the President's desk. Yet you all act like it was just signed into law in the dark of night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think some time in all that wrangling the people voting on it might deign to read something that's going to so drastically change things and cost the middle class more money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think some time in all that wrangling the people voting on it might deign to read something that's going to so drastically change things and cost the middle class more money?

Yes, I'm all for legislators and the public having time to do their due diligence on this bill. And considering that a best-case scenario still would not put this bill on Obama's desk for weeks, I don't really get the "time beef."

As for the costs passed onto to Americans, the last estimate I saw from the CBO put it at $175 a household a year (or about $15 a month). The EPA's estimate is $80 - $110 a year (or less than $10 a month). Do I like this cost component? No. But at the same time, I realize the current path we're on is unsustainable and my view is not so myopic to negate the fact that tranforming our energy inputs and outputs has costs. Also, note that the House bill fully complies with “pay-as-you-go” budgeting rules and does not increase the federal deficit. Under CBO scoring, in fact, the legislation produces a small amount of deficit reduction.

Lastly, a figure you don't hear thrown around too much is the job creation estimate. By all accounts, one of the biggest economic engines of the future is around green energy. This bill takes us one step closer in the direction we need to go. The status quo will continue to fight back, fear-monger and toss around the same lines they have for decades but the train has already left the station and it is starting to pick up steam (finally).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys - the bill has made it through one part of Congress. The Senate will likely have changes, it will then go to committee, where it will likely be re-worked, it will then have to be voted on again, etc. etc. It's a long way from the President's desk. Yet you all act like it was just signed into law in the dark of night.

The entire concept is both unnecessary and baseless. Save for hiking taxes on the American people and weighing down the economy. How so many have become so conned into thinking this is anywhere NEAR a good idea, is beyond me.

Why not bring back slavery ?

Why not rescind the right to vote for women?

Both make about as much sense as this idiotic and damned ILLEGAL bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys - the bill has made it through one part of Congress. The Senate will likely have changes, it will then go to committee, where it will likely be re-worked, it will then have to be voted on again, etc. etc. It's a long way from the President's desk. Yet you all act like it was just signed into law in the dark of night.

The entire concept is both unnecessary and baseless. Save for hiking taxes on the American people and weighing down the economy. How so many have become so conned into thinking this is anywhere NEAR a good idea, is beyond me.

Why not bring back slavery ?

Why not rescind the right to vote for women?

Both make about as much sense as this idiotic and damned ILLEGAL bill.

hahaha. How can a bill (law) be illegal?? :roflol::roflol: Maybe unconstitutional, but by its very definition, a bill can't be illegal. Seriously, thanks for the laughs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think some time in all that wrangling the people voting on it might deign to read something that's going to so drastically change things and cost the middle class more money?

Yes, I'm all for legislators and the public having time to do their due diligence on this bill. And considering that a best-case scenario still would not put this bill on Obama's desk for weeks, I don't really get the "time beef."

Wouldn't the time for due diligence have been BEFORE the House passed it rather than rushing it through and then promising due diligence somewhere down the road?

As for the costs passed onto to Americans, the last estimate I saw from the CBO put it at $175 a household a year (or about $15 a month). The EPA's estimate is $80 - $110 a year (or less than $10 a month). Do I like this cost component? No. But at the same time, I realize the current path we're on is unsustainable and my view is not so myopic to negate the fact that tranforming our energy inputs and outputs has costs. Also, note that the House bill fully complies with “pay-as-you-go” budgeting rules and does not increase the federal deficit. Under CBO scoring, in fact, the legislation produces a small amount of deficit reduction.

The EPA and CBO gave the two most rosy estimates of them all. And the CBO is notorious for estimating things and being way off because of faulty assumptions. AT BEST, we're talking $10-15 a month extra out of people's wallets. Other estimates have it at about $65 a month. Others well over $150 a month. That's not chump change for a middle class family.

Lastly, a figure you don't hear thrown around too much is the job creation estimate. By all accounts, one of the biggest economic engines of the future is around green energy. This bill takes us one step closer in the direction we need to go. The status quo will continue to fight back, fear-monger and toss around the same lines they have for decades but the train has already left the station and it is starting to pick up steam (finally).

That's great. But if one doesn't work in one of those industries, it's not exactly doing anything concrete. The power company doesn't take "it created more jobs" as a currency to pay the bill. Neither does the grocery store or my health insurance company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think some time in all that wrangling the people voting on it might deign to read something that's going to so drastically change things and cost the middle class more money?

Yes, I'm all for legislators and the public having time to do their due diligence on this bill. And considering that a best-case scenario still would not put this bill on Obama's desk for weeks, I don't really get the "time beef."

As for the costs passed onto to Americans, the last estimate I saw from the CBO put it at $175 a household a year (or about $15 a month). The EPA's estimate is $80 - $110 a year (or less than $10 a month). Do I like this cost component? No. But at the same time, I realize the current path we're on is unsustainable and my view is not so myopic to negate the fact that tranforming our energy inputs and outputs has costs. Also, note that the House bill fully complies with “pay-as-you-go” budgeting rules and does not increase the federal deficit. Under CBO scoring, in fact, the legislation produces a small amount of deficit reduction.

Lastly, a figure you don't hear thrown around too much is the job creation estimate. By all accounts, one of the biggest economic engines of the future is around green energy. This bill takes us one step closer in the direction we need to go. The status quo will continue to fight back, fear-monger and toss around the same lines they have for decades but the train has already left the station and it is starting to pick up steam (finally).

The CBO estimate is completely flawed, it didn't estimate ANYTHING for the second tier affect of the added cost of this tax flowed down to every thing we use. This bill won't raise a single dime for fixing the world unless it comes from the American consumers. You can't possibly believe that $175 per family is going to SAVE THE PLANET?

And green energy as an economic engine, that's a fallacy. Go look what Spain did, their attempt at forcing green energy has resulted in an 18.1% unemployment, TWICE the EU average.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hahaha. How can a bill (law) be illegal?? :roflol::roflol: Maybe unconstitutional, but by its very definition, a bill can't be illegal. Seriously, thanks for the laughs.

Illegal, immoral ,wrong, I don't give a damn about semantics, I'm just so furious that there was even a VOTE for this crap, and then to have it PASS ? It's unfathomable to me, the inanity and sheer mindlessness that is going on here. Let's pass some other gems, like....

Reparations for ALL blacks in America

Creationism is now to be taught in EVERY school, public and private. ( Erase all mention of Evolution )

Hell, just crown Obama as our life time King, and do away w/ the term 'President'.

I'm sure I could think of some even dumber bills that Congress could pass, but not too many than Cap and Trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think some time in all that wrangling the people voting on it might deign to read something that's going to so drastically change things and cost the middle class more money?

Yes, I'm all for legislators and the public having time to do their due diligence on this bill. And considering that a best-case scenario still would not put this bill on Obama's desk for weeks, I don't really get the "time beef."

As for the costs passed onto to Americans, the last estimate I saw from the CBO put it at $175 a household a year (or about $15 a month). The EPA's estimate is $80 - $110 a year (or less than $10 a month). Do I like this cost component? No. But at the same time, I realize the current path we're on is unsustainable and my view is not so myopic to negate the fact that tranforming our energy inputs and outputs has costs. Also, note that the House bill fully complies with “pay-as-you-go” budgeting rules and does not increase the federal deficit. Under CBO scoring, in fact, the legislation produces a small amount of deficit reduction.

Lastly, a figure you don't hear thrown around too much is the job creation estimate. By all accounts, one of the biggest economic engines of the future is around green energy. This bill takes us one step closer in the direction we need to go. The status quo will continue to fight back, fear-monger and toss around the same lines they have for decades but the train has already left the station and it is starting to pick up steam (finally).

What if the CBO's estimates are wrong and in hindsight we find that it's costing us $500 per year per household...will you denounce the bill?

At what price point does this bill become an unfair tax to the American people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the CBO's estimates are wrong and in hindsight we find that it's costing us $500 per year per household...will you denounce the bill?

At what price point does this bill become an unfair tax to the American people?

No.

You are asking the wrong questions. The better questions are: What is the cost of doing nothing? What happens if we continue to aggressively consume the world's finite resources with little regard to the effects? If the US does not seize this moment and lead with new technologies, new solutions and better ways forward, how long will we remain the brightest light and strongest country in the world?

Addressing the climate/energy situation is one of the opportunties we have to lift the nation out of this crisis. The time to move forward is now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't the time for due diligence have been BEFORE the House passed it rather than rushing it through and then promising due diligence somewhere down the road?
How do you know who in the House did or did not do their homework? I assume Bobby Bright did his before casting his vote against the measure? Come on Titan, you know the "Yay" and "Nay" votes on this bill were not about reading a 1,200 page document. So for the opposition to whine about the bill's length/last minute changes strikes me as a tad disingenuous, especially at this early stage in the process. Hell, there are some who don't even think this bill is going to get to a vote in the Senate. Believe me, this debate will continue for quite some time.
And the CBO is notorious for estimating things and being way off because of faulty assumptions.
Funny, you didn't have a problem with the CBO when were using their estimates to prop up your critique of the Stimulus Bill.
That's great. But if one doesn't work in one of those industries, it's not exactly doing anything concrete. The power company doesn't take "it created more jobs" as a currency to pay the bill. Neither does the grocery store or my health insurance company.
Yeah but we have to start mobilizing and preparing for the future. What... should we just remain stagnant on this issue and sit back and watch the rest of the world seize on opportunities we deem to not have enough instant gratification (jobs)?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the CBO's estimates are wrong and in hindsight we find that it's costing us $500 per year per household...will you denounce the bill?

At what price point does this bill become an unfair tax to the American people?

No.

You are asking the wrong questions. The better questions are: What is the cost of doing nothing? What happens if we continue to aggressively consume the world's finite resources with little regard to the effects? If the US does not seize this moment and lead with new technologies, new solutions and better ways forward, how long will we remain the brightest light and strongest country in the world?

Addressing the climate/energy situation is one of the opportunties we have to lift this nation from the depths of this crisis. To put our people back to work and restart the engines of our prosperity. This is the moment we achieve something worthy to be remembered. The time to move forward is now. All aboard.

Total BS. Your whole argument is based on global warming caused by humans. It's not happening.

Secondly and this is something I have repeatedly asked and no dims have bothered to answer; while you folks are ruining the U.S. economy in order to "save the world", what the hell is China and India going to be doing? Neither of them have any intention of signing on to any cap and trade BS. Neither of them have any intention of crippling their economies for this cockamamie BS dreamed up by extremist environmentalists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the costs passed onto to Americans, the last estimate I saw from the CBO put it at $175 a household a year (or about $15 a month). The EPA's estimate is $80 - $110 a year (or less than $10 a month). Do I like this cost component? No. But at the same time, I realize the current path we're on is unsustainable and my view is not so myopic to negate the fact that tranforming our energy inputs and outputs has costs. Also, note that the House bill fully complies with “pay-as-you-go” budgeting rules and does not increase the federal deficit. Under CBO scoring, in fact, the legislation produces a small amount of deficit reduction.

Lastly, a figure you don't hear thrown around too much is the job creation estimate. By all accounts, one of the biggest economic engines of the future is around green energy. This bill takes us one step closer in the direction we need to go. The status quo will continue to fight back, fear-monger and toss around the same lines they have for decades but the train has already left the station and it is starting to pick up steam (finally).

Federaltaxliabilitiesofcapandtrade.png

link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I view this as more of an energy reform bill than a climate bill. Simply put, by capping fossil fuel outputs, greener energy sources will be propelled forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I view this as more of an energy reform bill than a climate bill. Simply put, by capping fossil fuel outputs, other energy sources will be propelled forward.

You mean like wind turbines? Which can't produce enough energy to amount to much of anything? And which the dims scream that they block their view and kill birds? Or nuclear which the dims have blocked for years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I view this as more of an energy reform bill than a climate bill.

Obama doesn't.

I love how you basically said there's no amount of tax burden put on the American citizens that you would vote against...as long as that tax was under the guise of climate/fossil fuel control.

That's awful. When you defend this bill, I don't think you should use the $175 per household CBO estimate...since you'd support it if it was $1,750 or, $10,000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I view this as more of an energy reform bill than a climate bill.

Obama doesn't.
According to...?
I love how you basically said there's no amount of tax burden put on the American citizens that you would vote against...as long as that tax was under the guise of climate/fossil fuel control.

That's awful. When you defend this bill, I don't think you should use the $175 per household CBO estimate...since you'd support it if it was $1,750 or, $10,000.

Talk about twisting my words. All I'm saying is we shouldn't be penny-wise and pound-foolish when it comes to this matter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummm, maybe it's just *my* internet, but I see it on the front page of every news site. That, plus the bill isn't law - it passed 1 half of congress, still a ways to go.

Also, when has policy EVER taken the news away from entertainment? MJ died, thats what people want to see apparently.

On the CNN POLITICS page yesterday, there wasn't a single story about it on the homepage. There's a 10 pack of "top stories" links. None of which contained anything about it.

And for the last 3 weeks, the administration has been talking about health care to distract us from this bill. If the people don't know it's coming, then they can't call and urge their representatives against voting for it.

Make no mistake, this is a bill they don't want the American people to know about.

The American people made their decision on action regarding climate change in the 2008 elections. It was a part of Obama's and the Democratic party platform. The Democratic party was elected into power on that platform, and not following through on it would have been derelict. If you don't like it - tough, and I suggest doing your all to ensure your views are properly represented in the 2010 elections.

In addition, health care was a part of that platform so get ready for that as well.

This is the most LAME argument EITHER side makes after an election. The PEOPLE voted for those who would KEEP THE PEOPLE at the top of their agenda, not POLITICS! If you are happy about this bill, then you have some soul searching to do. The only people who be effected most are those who pay their bills with money THEY EARNED! :angryfire:

If you don't like my response, then tough. :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I view this as more of an energy reform bill than a climate bill. Simply put, by capping fossil fuel outputs, greener energy sources will be propelled forward.

I view it as another way for government to control every aspect of American life without tossing out the Constitution and creating a dictatorship or monarchy. OVER THE TOP!

Capitalism is what drives technology, not government mandates and political grandstanding. :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...