backtop


Print 135 comment(s) - last by lightfoot.. on Jul 5 at 3:14 AM


The Waxman-Markey bill has passed the U.S. House of Representatives and now only needs to pass the Senate to become the first U.S. bill to regulate carbon emissions, believed to be the primary factor in driving global warming. The bill would help to reduce dirty coal power use.  (Source: EcoNewMexico)
New bill will help to cut U.S. carbon emissions

The Waxman-Markey bill, an integral piece of legislation which will help fight global warming, has passed the House and only needs Senate approval before being signed into law by President Barack Obama.  The bill proposes the most aggressive carbon cutting plan to date, with provisions to create a "carbon market", which should help to create new jobs and a new section of the economy.

While the bill will have a major impact, its power was lessened by a series of concessions.  In order to pass the bill crafted by Representative Henry A. Waxman (D-CA) and Representative Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Democrats had to woo less enthusiastic members of their party and Republicans with cash incentives. 

They packed the bill with billions in agriculture and forest industry funding.  Incentives for automakers, steel companies, natural gas drillers, refiners, universities and real estate agents all were also packed in.  A number of smaller pet projects, such as $50 million hurricane research center for a freshman lawmaker from Florida, were also added.

The real weakening, though, came in the form of big concessions to the utility companies.  They received tens of billions of dollars in free pollution permits as an assurance that they could continue to build and operate coal-burning plants.  They also were promised billions more in federal funding to deploy carbon-capture technologies, making "dirty" coal plants cleaner.

Representative Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, approved of the deal cutting, though he disliked the bill.  He stated, "It is unprecedented, but at least it's transparent."

Despite the concession the bill is valuable for its symbolism, if a bit weak on the issues -- it is the first U.S. bill to look to regulate the manmade gases that a majority of scientists worldwide blame for global warming.  The bill will require 15 percent of U.S. power to come from alternative sources by 2020.

The bill will cap emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide.  Polluting companies can then trade cash for credits held by other companies.  The government will give away 85 percent of the emissions credits at the start of the program and will sell the remaining 15 percent as the program kicks off.  This scheme has been dubbed "cap and trade".  President Obama says that it has the potential to create new jobs and jump-start the lagging economy.

President Obama has praised the bill, stating, "I think that finding the right balance between providing new incentives to businesses, but not giving away the store, is always an art; it's not a science because it's never precise."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Porkbarrel
By ice456789 on 7/2/2009 8:29:11 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
They packed the bill with billions in agriculture and forest industry funding. Incentives for automakers, steel companies, natural gas drillers, refiners, universities and real estate agents all were also packed in. A number of smaller pet projects, such as $50 million hurricane research center for a freshman lawmaker from Florida, were also added.
When will our leaders ever vote on something based on the merits instead of selling their votes? Wait, I can answer my own question.... never. Incentives for real estate agents? Really???

I think that every earmark that is added to a bill should have the names of the proponents of that earmark IN THE BILL. Then when it came election time it would be easy to tally how much crap that person inserted into bills, and how much the taxpayer is paying just so they would vote for something.




RE: Porkbarrel
By acase on 7/2/2009 8:51:38 AM , Rating: 5
I totally agree. And I really can't believe I just read all that and then the author STILL tried to spin it as a positive thing. Unbelievable.


RE: Porkbarrel
By acase on 7/2/2009 8:53:09 AM , Rating: 5
I guess it just doesn't matter how transparent something is when your mind is opaque.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Cypherdude1 on 7/2/2009 12:17:51 PM , Rating: 5
I take it this is the "cap & trade" legislation that everyone has been talking about. How much is this going to cost me? President Obama, during the campaign, said this "would only cost Americans an extra 'postage stamp' per day." Let's do the math on this: A postage stamp costs 44¢. 44¢ times 365 days per year is $161! Not exactly cheap, this is going to be expensive for every American, not only with their electrical bills, but also with every manufactured product.


RE: Porkbarrel
By bjacobson on 7/2/2009 2:19:58 PM , Rating: 4
Great Britain enacted something similar to this a while ago. Average cost / family to them was $1100/year.

This is estimated to cost a little under $3000/year.


RE: Porkbarrel
By BBeltrami on 7/2/2009 7:48:18 PM , Rating: 5
The expense to the pocketbook isn't the problem, IMO. I am willing to pay more as long as I have the freedom to choose or attain my desired standard of living (Something about right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness guaranteed in the Constitution). That is the REAL problem, though. It's not going to be a choice I get to make for myself for much longer.

There are powerful people who believe you are a Traitor to your country if you do not express support for AGW as fact (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugma... For eight years I've listened to the left explain that presidential dissent is the ultimate patriotism while they refuse to stand for the National Anthem at baseball games. Now they fawn over the President like grotesque sycophants, questioning nothing.

My patriotism isn't contingent on agreeing with the sitting President and my love for Our Flag, and respect and support for our military are exactly the same as they were 5 years ago and 10 years before that. For my loyalty, and my love of God, I am dismissed as a simpleton, a bigot, a flag-waver, a hypocrite, a denier... and now, a Traitor.

And the same people calling me names said I was supposed to feel threatened by Bush's "Patriot Act". No, I'm not really worried about $.44 per day, my friend.

God Bless America.


RE: Porkbarrel
By sinful on 7/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Porkbarrel
By The0ne on 7/2/2009 9:34:44 AM , Rating: 5
I have to admit, this article is pretty sad and appalling.


RE: Porkbarrel
By zombiexl on 7/2/2009 11:28:05 AM , Rating: 5
Maybe thats why it took Mick 4 days to post. He had to work on the spin.


RE: Porkbarrel
By zombiexl on 7/2/2009 11:29:29 AM , Rating: 1
I take that back, it's been 5 days since the bill passed.


RE: Porkbarrel
By FITCamaro on 7/2/2009 12:53:31 PM , Rating: 5
Heh. Agree completely. I guess it takes Jason a few days to come up with bullshit of that magnitude. Admiral Ackbar would be impressed.


RE: Porkbarrel
By theapparition on 7/2/2009 8:54:49 AM , Rating: 5
What you are talking about is the line item veto, a great piece of legislation that was finally passed in 1996. It enables a president to veto pork from any bill passed from congress. Clinton was the only president able to use it.

It was ultimately repealed. The city of New York sued claiming that it was unconstitutional. It was repealed by several lower courts. Our illustrious Supreme Court upheld the repeal.

If we had a president with some sort of backbone, a bill loaded with earmarks would immediately be sent down the toilet. As it is, our robot-in-chief has demonstrated by actions that he personally favors earmarks (especially towards his pet projects like ACORN) and has no interest in ending the practice.

Support lawmakers who support a constitutional ammendment to allow line item vetos.


RE: Porkbarrel
By TomZ on 7/2/2009 9:02:12 AM , Rating: 5
The ironic thing is that Obama campaigned against waste and also made a big deal about not signing pork-laden bills. But I'll bet he'll sign this bill anyway, depite how loaded it is with special-interest money.


RE: Porkbarrel
By pequin06 on 7/2/2009 9:36:04 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Obama campaigned against waste and also made a big deal about not signing pork-laden bills.


I find it very amusing that people believed it too.
Yes we can! & Hope....

Obama is a Oxymoron.


RE: Porkbarrel
By dgingeri on 7/2/2009 9:42:58 AM , Rating: 5
I don't find that so surprising.

The fact of the matter is that people still believe that humanity as a whole, and general human nature, is good, when we are not. Many things sound good on paper, but totally fail when put into practice (welfare, communism) while other things are total crap, yet people still believe in it if the press touts it often enough.

The fact of the matter is that most people are complete fools.


RE: Porkbarrel
By dgingeri on 7/2/2009 9:48:05 AM , Rating: 3
I just want to add: this is why I am unemployed, after working 50 hours work weeks, with no overtime pay, and keeping the internal support team afloat for 8 months, while the backstabbing, lying thief that pushed me, while working 30 hour work weeks, out got a promotion to team lead.

Well, after a month and a half, they are behind by 200 tickets and the whole company is grinding to a halt. So, they learned who was doing the work around there. Too bad it was too late for both me and the company.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/2/2009 10:06:09 AM , Rating: 5
No, not really, it was not Ironic at all. The voters just did not want to listen to people like myself who said he is very waste, useless and will have your taxes going through the roof in no time. So, WARNING do not elect Obama as President, since I'm a citizen of Illinois I can tell you he has proven himself useless. Never did a day of work as a Senator just kept writing his book and running for President... He did Co-sign other Senators work and try to claim he helped write it, but did nothing himself.
Now since it's too late to listen to the year plus of warnings giving out by thousands of others we are going to enjoy the redistrubtion of Wealth... all money will go to the government and nothing to the people therefore everyone will be equal - very poor. The first thing we will see per Obama (if you were listen this time) is $6.00 plus per gallon of gas. The idiot thinks this will increase sales of Hybrids which yes you will see increase in Hybrids but everything else will go up in cost too... Corn will be over a $1.00 per ear, a $500 TV will cost $1,300, $50 tires will cost well over $100... oh and by the way the company you work for is going to ask you to take a pay cut in order to help them make ends meet. If you say no, then you will be fired, because they can not afford you.
Sorry about the b*tch*ng, but I just can not stand it when idiots like Obama talk about the Economy like they understand it, when in truth he never even ran a lemonade stand (they were not popular in Indonesia were he was raised.)
Mark me down if you must because you do not like what I say, but just remember the truth can hurt and I'm being truthful he is going to hurt the USA badly.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Murst on 7/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Porkbarrel
By zombiexl on 7/2/2009 11:20:57 AM , Rating: 5
As long as there is spending on things that arent needed taxes NEVER need to go up.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Murst on 7/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Porkbarrel
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/2/2009 11:37:07 AM , Rating: 5
by increasing the volume of business (lowering taxes) you increase the volume of taxes collected. Double the GNP and you will double the taxes collected. If you increase tax you decrease GNP.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Murst on 7/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Porkbarrel
By drebo on 7/2/2009 11:49:02 AM , Rating: 5
Cutting spending will be a lot more effective in reducing the deficits than taxing will be. When taxes get to be outrageous, people will just stop paying them.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Murst on 7/2/2009 11:51:18 AM , Rating: 3
Again, I agree that cutting spending is the best way forward, and perhaps the huge deficit and threat of default will actually force congress to cut spending, but with the way congress is acting right now ( and has acted for the past 80 years ), we can only dream about spending cuts.


RE: Porkbarrel
By drebo on 7/2/2009 11:54:23 AM , Rating: 5
Then stop electing socialists into office.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/2/2009 11:51:27 AM , Rating: 5
Correct... but we can not afford to increase taxes. We are already over taxed. We need to cut spending like crazy... Then maybe we can cut taxes and lower our debts at the same time. Increasing taxes is the 100% wrong thing to do.

We just have to tell programs like ACORN - sorry no money for you, we need to review people on wealth fare some can stay but some should not be on the program, we need to find politicians who "skim off the top or line their pockets" and fine them and put them in jail for a long time.... and so on


RE: Porkbarrel
By FITCamaro on 7/2/2009 1:17:06 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah I find it amazing we just gave $5 billion to ACORN but can't spend money on things like building more F22s.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Murst on 7/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Porkbarrel
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/2/2009 6:12:28 PM , Rating: 4
Well at least the F22 will add in protecting the country. ACORN is full of untrustworthy actions. If you are meaning there are even better places to spend money to have more benefits, I would agree with you.


RE: Porkbarrel
By corduroygt on 7/2/2009 7:17:12 PM , Rating: 3
How about just not spending the $5 billion? We don't really need more F-22's at the moment, and we definitely don't need ACORN.


RE: Porkbarrel
By lightfoot on 7/5/2009 3:14:18 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
We don't really need more F-22's at the moment...

The moment that you realize that you need more F-22s it's already too late. Air superiority is everything in modern warfare.


RE: Porkbarrel
By sinful on 7/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Porkbarrel
By Farfignewton on 7/2/2009 11:15:12 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
To date, $830.2 billion dollars have been allocated to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

quote:
Cost of War in Iraq 683,596,827,528
http://costofwar.com/

quote:
the Iraq war will have cost about $694 billion.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/11/nation/na-...

It's okay, being off by a factor of 5 or so does not count in a global warming thread.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Farfignewton on 7/2/2009 11:17:43 PM , Rating: 3
That was NOT the post I responded to.

this was

quote:
What I find amazing is that Republicans accept a $3,500 BILLION dollar bill for the War in Iraq and then get in a tizzy over $5 Billion. In other words, what we're doing in Iraq is costing us 700x what ACORN is costing us.


RE: Porkbarrel
By AEvangel on 7/2/2009 11:29:09 AM , Rating: 5
I agree with you on one aspect Obama or Mccain it would have made very little difference to the majority of us, but Taxes NEVER need to go up. Government needs to e reigned in, I just hope more people come to realize this before it's too late.

This bill will do nothing more then cost the average consumer more money.

Personally I like this line

quote:
President Obama has praised the bill, stating, "I think that finding the right balance between providing new incentives to businesses, but not giving away the store, is always an art; it's not a science because it's never precise."


Your right it's not science, science has nothing at all to do with this bill, it's pure fear mongering and money grabbing.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Omega215D on 7/2/2009 11:37:01 AM , Rating: 5
so should we do the ultimate thing on July 4th and put an end to this political madness through force as good citizens should be doing.

It is the responsibility of the patriot to protect his country from its government.

– Thomas Paine

there was a good quote in National Treasure but I can't seem to remember it.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/2/2009 11:41:15 AM , Rating: 5
I'm starting to think that time is coming very soon....


RE: Porkbarrel
By Omega215D on 7/2/2009 11:43:16 AM , Rating: 5
Sorry, a new season of American Idol is coming up in the fall can the citizens do it next year?


RE: Porkbarrel
By Maxima2k2se on 7/2/2009 2:03:11 PM , Rating: 5
The sad thing is this statement is so true.


RE: Porkbarrel
By sdegroft on 7/2/2009 11:49:50 AM , Rating: 3
If we ended up getting stuck with 8 years of King Obama then I think that time will come . . . .


RE: Porkbarrel
By Murst on 7/2/2009 11:53:50 AM , Rating: 1
We got 8 years of Bush and yet we're still here. I think if we get 8 years of Obama, we'll survive.

What we really need is a 3rd party to split congress so that no party has a majority.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/2/2009 12:01:21 PM , Rating: 3
Bush lowered taxes not increased.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Murst on 7/2/2009 12:06:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bush lowered taxes not increased

And that didn't exactly turn out too well... lowering taxes works great when you also don't increase spending by insane amounts. Instead, Bush created the long term deficit disaster that the current and next few presidents will need to fix somehow.


RE: Porkbarrel
By drebo on 7/2/2009 12:12:32 PM , Rating: 5
This is why fiscal liberalism (a.k.a. socialism) doesn't work. The people who pay taxes end up paying more taxes to support the people who don't. Our founding fathers are probably rolling in their graves at how disfunctional our government has become.

Elect some fiscal conservatives and the spending AND taxes will be decreased. I still don't understand how people could think that electing someone so far left as Obama AND giving him a liberal-controlled House and Senate was a good idea.


RE: Porkbarrel
By LibertyFace on 7/2/2009 12:30:08 PM , Rating: 4
You now have the choice between the party of big government, and the party of bigger government.


RE: Porkbarrel
By sinful on 7/2/2009 7:46:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Elect some fiscal conservatives and the spending AND taxes will be decreased.


The Democrats ARE the fiscal conservatives -- at least compared to the Republicans!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S....

Wake up people, the Republicans are NOT fiscal conservatives!

The Republicans have become the "Tax & Spend" party and the Democrats have become the fiscal conservative party.

Sad, but true.


RE: Porkbarrel
By drebo on 7/2/2009 8:51:35 PM , Rating: 4
There's a reason I said "fiscal conservative" and not "Republican". Most Republicans these days are just as liberal as the Democrats when it comes to social policy. Hence why I did not take a party line with my statement.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/2/2009 4:22:00 PM , Rating: 2
actually, compared to Clinton's economy it improved greatly. See most people still had a job under Clinton economy, so they did not pay attention to the fact we had quarter after quarter of negative growth (called a recession - something Pres. Bush never had till his last two quarters, one which was after the news that Obama was going to become next President), this is why business started and continued to close after Clinton left office - they had no money left in their reserves - all spent during the 90's keep people employed. The 00's was the balancing out time frame for businesses. Bush problem was only has 1 or 2 percent growth when we need 3 to 5 percent. a couple post up explains it well.... Not everyone is paying in equally when it comes to taxes so it's not balanced probably. This is the fault of the Dems for putting it in and fault of the Reps. for not stopping it. Neither party is clean of mistakes.


RE: Porkbarrel
By sinful on 7/2/2009 10:20:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
actually, compared to Clinton's economy it improved greatly. See most people still had a job under Clinton economy, so they did not pay attention to the fact we had quarter after quarter of negative growth

Are you joking? Evidence? Proof?

quote:
(called a recession - something Pres. Bush never had till his last two quarters, one which was after the news that Obama was going to become next President),

LOL, so Clinton caused the recession before Bush took office, and Obama caused the recession before Bush, but Bush didn't cause the recession before Clinton?
LOL.
Your fanboyism is showing!
By your logic, Bush ruined the economic boom of Clinton by running for President.

quote:
this is why business started and continued to close after Clinton left office - they had no money left in their reserves - all spent during the 90's keep people employed.

HAHAHA. Or, you know, they saw Bush coming and saw how he ran all his businesses into the ground and were preparing for a recession - an end of Clinton's record economic growth. A much more plausible scenario given how smart Clinton appeared vs. how clueless Bush was.

quote:
The 00's was the balancing out time frame for businesses. Bush problem was only has 1 or 2 percent growth when we need 3 to 5 percent.


Uhh, the problem was that Bush's 1-2% growth was all built on quicksand and the whole thing imploded before he could bail out.
The financial crisis was YEARS in the making; trying to blame it on Obama is downright ridiculous. The only thing Bush suceeded in was trying to delay the implosion so that he could scapegoat the blame onto someone else.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/3/2009 9:48:23 AM , Rating: 2
Your understanding of Economics is pathetic. You ask for proof right after it was explained to you what a makes it a recession. Clinton had very little positive quarters and less back to back... Bush was almost 100% positive quarters. That is a major difference. However, since you do not know how to read the economic history of this country even after explained to you, I'll just classify you as the normal basic fool. Think about fool, within 30 days of Bush coming into office 4 or 5 100 plus year old business file BK and close their doors for good and dozen more within a year or two – and did you forget the whole dot com issue? Is that because in 30 days Bush ran them out of business or because in 7 years of recession condition they finally just ran out of money? They certainly did not file for BK and close their doors because of "BOOMING" business. By the way, an old business like that will have at least 5 years worth of tax write offs to keep them in business, but they were gone in 30 days... As I stated before, Clinton times were not good for business they spent all their reserves paying employee payrolls to keep people employed by the end of Clinton terms many just could not afford to stay in business. Now Obama wants to do the same thing with taxes (RAISE THEM) and you praise him for this.... Clinton never had an economic boom. What he enjoyed and ruined was Reganomics. 12 years of Reganomics is what gave the financial strength for many companies to survive the horrible economic choices Clinton made. One thing you are correct on is the financial state we are in took years... however; more years then you are counting. It was Clinton's actions that let banks give out so many bad and questionable loans, just took near 10 years to see that result. Not say Bush was perfect, no far from it, just stating a fact - his term in office had more positive growth then Clinton and what Obama will have if he keeps up his plan. It’s all very simple economics, something I’m guessing you refuse to learn.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/3/2009 10:03:29 AM , Rating: 2
you realize Bush did not create and start this long term deficit.... You have to go back to JFK if not earlier. JFK was the first president to suggest we barrow money from the social security reserve, and now that is almost dead thanks to that action. The debt of this nation was there and very large before he became president. Also, I would add I do not think being attacked and have the twin towers and 11 other builds (think it was 11) destroyed was part of his economic plan. I do not know an American that did not want something done from that action. If correct actions was taken or a bit too much knee jerk re-action, well only time will tell. Really still to soon to tell, we do not know all the facts and probably never will. Either way, the deficit is not his creation it is "OUR" creation, we asked for it, we got it.


RE: Porkbarrel
By FITCamaro on 7/2/2009 12:56:54 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I think another American Revolution is unavoidable at this point.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Omega215D on 7/2/2009 1:14:14 PM , Rating: 2
as much as I'd like to improve the US the fact is most people are comfortable and don't want to upset the current way of life. There's also the thing about the citizens having no power to actually rise up against the current government. Voting doesn't even work anymore because it comes down to whoever has the campaign funds gets to go to the election.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/2/2009 6:17:36 PM , Rating: 2
actually that is what the 2nd amendment in the bill of rights is about... Right to arms - to take out the government if needed.

I would add the military is there to protect the people not the government. So it would be interesting to see how it would play out. Not saying I want to see it happen... things might not get better.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Jabroney701020 on 7/2/2009 2:16:30 PM , Rating: 2
I also take into account the possibility of just moving to another country, not that I think that there is a country that is "better" than the US in most regards, but one that is not taking such a downturn and there is more of a sense of responsibility in the nation as a whole. I know that part of my statement contradicts itself, but I think about it as a possibility none-the-less.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/2/2009 11:33:30 AM , Rating: 3
You do not know much on Economics do you. When Obama as he has stated raises the cost of gas to over $6. per gallon the cost of making product, growing (planting, harvesting) will all triple, then cost of distributing product (UPS, FEDEX) will triple, and so on and so on till it hits the store floor. If anything, I'm being to low on cost increases.

Yes, the voting for Obama vs someone like McCain (McCain was not best pick either - USA need two better people from both party's) would make a difference on tax policy, because if you studied Economics you would understand in current times (slowing business and job losses), the ONLY way out is to drop taxes. Any and every increase will harm the economy. It's been proven through history time and time again in many different countries not just the USA. To experts it obvious we need to cut taxes. Problem is people do not listen to experts they listen to lawyers. We have to live within our means, so spending cuts must happen... and as you said, neither party is willing to cut spending. This is not a fully correct statement. Your statement should be, "We the people keep foolishly voting back into office the same type of people who spend more then we make and fail to vote in the correct people who will cut spending."
The first way you address a problem is realize what you did to cause the problem. In this case look into the mirror and ask yourself "Did I vote for the guy who is raising my taxes verse cutting spending?" If the answer is yes, then realize you need to change your ways of picking the people you want in office. We the people need to stand up and take control again and stop letting these politicians run wild. Again, the truth can hurt, but we as a nation need to wake up and face it.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Murst on 7/2/2009 11:41:09 AM , Rating: 1
If the cost of gasoline was $6, there would be better alternatives to power our cars ( such as natural gas ).

Unfortunately, Obama is not going to raise the tax on gasoline. I say unfortunately, because most economists actually believe that is the best way to get rid of our dependence on foreign oil. Which leads me to the following question: What economists are you talking about? Specifically, what economist has suggested that we lower taxes on gasoline?


RE: Porkbarrel
By drebo on 7/2/2009 11:52:54 AM , Rating: 3
And most intelligent people (i.e. NOT liberal economists playing to the sensationalist media) agree that drilling our OWN oil, of which we have plenty, is the best way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil AND lower costs, therefore spurring economic growth through increasing discretionary spending.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Murst on 7/2/2009 11:57:36 AM , Rating: 1
Drilling our own oil is a very short term solution. We'd be having the exact same problem in a few decades. Why not fix it now?

I'd be all for drilling in Alaska, if 100% of the revenues went toward nuclear and/or renewable energy. That way, when that runs out in a few decades, at least we'd be in better shape.


RE: Porkbarrel
By drebo on 7/2/2009 12:02:12 PM , Rating: 3
In a few decades, we will be advanced enough to have a viable alternative to gasoline, either through oil shale (of which we have enough to last us hundreds of years) or other alternatives which currently do not exists.

Anyone who thinks hybrids are a solution to foreign oil is delusional. Anyone who thinks plugin electric vehicles are a viable alternative RIGHT NOW is just plain stupid.

My point is not that drilling our own oil is the long-term solution. My point is that the "getting off foreign oil" argument that people use to justify fucking with free-market economics and artificially increasing fuel costs is completely baseless, as there are MANY other solutions which have a FAR better chance of working and will yield a FAR healthier economic situation.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Murst on 7/2/2009 12:09:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
In a few decades, we will be advanced enough

GM made the same bet with the Volt... by the time the Volt is out, there will be better technology that will make it affordable. I guess they still have a few months, but that bet isn't looking very smart right now. Why would you want to gamble like that?


RE: Porkbarrel
By drebo on 7/2/2009 12:17:34 PM , Rating: 4
The Volt is a plugin electric that was a DIRECT result of government intervention in the free market (the increase in CAFE standards). Plugin electrics are NOT viable right now. We don't have the battery technology now or in the foreseeable future.

As far as gambling goes, I'd prefer to know that we're creating DOMESTIC jobs through drilling for our own oil while we're working to develop technologies such as the ability to cheaply refine oil shale into gasoline or developing the battery, power, and charging technologies that will allow us to make plugin electrics viable.

It's not the government's job to make sure that gets done. In fact, I'd wager that it's the government's FAULT that it hasn't been done yet. Government intervention has never been, and will never be, a good thing.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Murst on 7/2/2009 5:20:39 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not arguing for CAFE standards here ( although you'd have a hard time proving that the Volt is a "DIRECT" result of that ). What I'm saying is that you can't hope that technology will be advanced enough at some future time and determine spending based on that assumption. But apparently that went way over your head.


RE: Porkbarrel
By drebo on 7/2/2009 8:53:48 PM , Rating: 2
Uhm. Is that not EXACTLY what you're doing when you're putting ALL of your eggs in the current "alternative fuel" basket, to the almost certain detriment of our economy as a whole?

I don't even know why I'm arguing with you. You can't change the mind of someone who doesn't use it to formulate their opinions.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Murst on 7/3/2009 12:59:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Uhm. Is that not EXACTLY what you're doing when you're putting ALL of your eggs in the current "alternative fuel" basket, to the almost certain detriment of our economy as a whole?


Nuclear is by far the best solution to our energy problem. The technology is here, it is proven, and it will last us more than a few decades.

Renewable energy is also proven as a good supplement. We also have natural gas, and we're finding more and more of it here in the US every year.

The way I see it, it is you who's putting all of their eggs in one basket by arguing that we need to stick with oil for now and hope that some new miracle technology will be here in a few years. I say we diversify our energy sources - especially ones we know will last us past 2050.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/2/2009 11:59:49 AM , Rating: 3
Obama bill that is passing is going to raise the tax on gas by $5 to 6.00 per gallon to make sure cost is over $6.00 per gallon. You think Obama actually talks to economist... He thinks he understand this better then any one even though he has not studied the field. No economist would say, hey raising the cost on everything on an overburdened society is a good way of lowering debt. Especially when there are hundreds of ways to lower the debt without changing the current tax levels.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Murst on 7/2/2009 12:10:56 PM , Rating: 2
Link to the bill please... thx.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/2/2009 2:43:55 PM , Rating: 2
Bill has passed one house now on to the second. You just have to listen to what Obama said, We need to have $6.00 a gallon to increase the sales of cleaner energy product like hybrids. Do not forget, the price of natural gas will go up in price from this act as well.

Of course again he thinks he know more then most people... Hybrids are not cleaner in long run. That battery is going to only last 4 or 6 years then you will have to replace it.... So, where are you going to dispose of the acid filled batteries? My understanding is that does more damage to the planet then oil. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Of course do not get me wrong. I am 100% for cleaner products, more miles per gallon and such. I just know you can not force it to happen. The market place has to want it to happen. You can encourage the market to want these thing sooner by rewarding the people (bigger tax breaks...) for going with cleaner products. However, punishing (raising taxes) the people will stop them from buying cleaner products, because they will not have the money to buy newer and cleaner products. In the end they will have to find ways to keep the old products working longer. This is very basic economics which Obama does not understand... Nor half our current Government.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Murst on 7/2/2009 5:01:46 PM , Rating: 2
There is nothing in that bill about a $6 tax on gasoline. Nice try though.


RE: Porkbarrel
By ice456789 on 7/2/2009 9:32:39 AM , Rating: 2
Line item veto was great, but I'm talking about something weaker (and perhaps less objectionable by courts). You want an earmark? Put your name on it. It should be a part of your permanent political record. Right now come election time, lawmakes play the blame game, blaming each other for earmarks because they all know it's his word vs mine. I'd like to have it be public record, in black and white. If a congressman has 50 earmarks over his recent term totalling $1b, then I know his vote is for sale no matter what he says to the public. Run him out of town. There are too many good people willing to have the job to allow these mercenaries to write our laws.

I'm still in dreamland, because for something like that to happen the guys in Washington would have to enact it themselves. But talks of 'transparency' and vetoing any bill with earmarks were a big part of Obama's campaign. I guess we'll have to see if he is willing or able to follow through on that. If not, he'll have a lot to answer for in 3 years.


RE: Porkbarrel
By zombiexl on 7/2/2009 11:20:04 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
If not, he'll have a lot to answer for in 3 years.

That's assuming your right to vote isnt take away in some ammendment to some 'emergency' bill. Or more realistically it would assume the media actually holds him accountable for anything he does.


RE: Porkbarrel
By grandpope on 7/2/2009 12:48:09 PM , Rating: 2
All hail President Palpatine!


RE: Porkbarrel
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 7/2/2009 10:49:42 AM , Rating: 2
Then ALL presidents have shown that they favor earmarks by their actions since every president has had to sign bills with earmarks in them - and every one has them.

If the US Supreme Court upheld the constitutional challenge, then it will take a constitutional amendment to end the practice. And, um, who needs to vote for the amendment? D-oh! They all campaign on reform, but none do it once they are in.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Omega215D on 7/2/2009 11:31:47 AM , Rating: 3
And in the news still is how our NY state government is still bickering and wasting money on themselves. NY is becoming a terrible state to live in; these idiots get paid 5-6 figures to be wasteful children.


RE: Porkbarrel
By MrPeabody on 7/2/2009 9:10:34 AM , Rating: 5
My advice: invest in silver. It seems that thirty pieces goes a lot further these days.


RE: Porkbarrel
By rudy on 7/2/2009 11:09:24 AM , Rating: 3
The thing is this would not matter because the people who vote for these reps are usually the ones who directly gain from the ear mark. The point is that alot of economies stood to lose from this bill and so they had to be bribed with incentives for other industries in their area. If the people of MI could vote to kick out someone from another state it might work.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Murst on 7/2/2009 11:14:55 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
and how much the taxpayer is paying just so they would vote for something

Tax payers don't pay anything extra because of earmarks. An earmark just directs the spending of money to a particular place. For example, the department of defense may have a budget of $500B, and $100B of that may be earmarked, which essentially means that the DoD has discretion on how to allocate $400B of their own budget, since $100B was allocated by the earmarks already.

I do agree that earmarks are bad because they tend to go to places that the agencies would not be spending money, but too many people on these forums have no idea what earmarks are. They just assume that it leads to more spending, when that is just not the case.

The cost to the taxpayer is the same, whether the money is earmarked or not.


RE: Porkbarrel
By zombiexl on 7/2/2009 11:27:00 AM , Rating: 3
The money for the earmark has to come from somewhere. The spending is already out of hand. Maybe the earmark would come from the budget that is already spending too much, but if not for the earmarks the budget could be cut.

I think it is you who has no clue.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Murst on 7/2/2009 11:34:47 AM , Rating: 2
I explained to you what an earmark is, yet you say I have no clue. Go do some reading if you don't believe me, but my post was pretty much a statement of fact, not my opinion.

If you believe you know something about earmarks that I don't and/or my post was somehow inaccurate, then please, correct it.


RE: Porkbarrel
By drebo on 7/2/2009 11:58:05 AM , Rating: 2
This bill adds a new spending to the budget. We don't need this bill. Therefore, it is unnecessary taxation. The money for the bill has to come from somewhere, and it's NOT coming from current budgeted money (that money is already budgeted).

No, an earmark does not necessarily increase the amount of a bill...for instance, 50% of sales tax is earmarked for road repair (example, not fact).

However, when said tax currently does not exists, as in the case of this bill, every single earmark added is extra tax that should not be paid.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Murst on 7/2/2009 5:07:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, when said tax currently does not exists, as in the case of this bill, every single earmark added is extra tax that should not be paid.

It seems you still don't understand. The "taxes" raised from this bill were already set. The earmarks added on have nothing to do with that "tax rate". If there were no earmarks, the "tax rate" would be the same.

Again, I would absolutely love if there were no earmarks in laws, since it isn't the most efficient way to spend money. However, what you are arguing against isn't earmarks, but taxation in general - you just don't seem to realize it for some reason.


RE: Porkbarrel
By drebo on 7/2/2009 8:55:10 PM , Rating: 2
Are you that blind? If there were not $150 billion in earmarks, the tax would be $150 billion dollars less. Why is that difficult for you to understand?

Oh, right. Turning your brain off is a prerequisite for liberalism.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Murst on 7/3/2009 1:02:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you that blind? If there were not $150 billion in earmarks, the tax would be $150 billion dollars less.

That's pretty funny. See.. you still don't understand. The bill was drafted, and in order to pass it, earmarks were added on. The tax rate in that bill was already set. I don't see how you can't understand that.

Go read up on how earmarks work and then we'll argue.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Screwballl on 7/2/2009 11:19:30 AM , Rating: 3
What we really need is legal and specific wording that states "no bill or law can have any extra wording, cost or earmarks that can be added that is not directly and explicitly related to the bill itself. Any legislator, judge or executive officer adding such extras, pork, earmarks or extra line items not related is subject to legal charges, possible required jail time and fines that will cost them (out of their own pocket) at minimum 10% of the bill/law expenditure or cost."

So a bill like this would cost our congress at least a good billion out of their own pockets plus plenty of jail time.

Of course as spineless as the past few presidents have been, I suspect this will only get worse as socialism takes hold.


RE: Porkbarrel
By Murst on 7/2/2009 11:23:10 AM , Rating: 1
You do realize that including something in the bill automatically makes the contents of the bill relate to the bill itself...

Think about it. The bill is only and exactly what its contents say it is.


Great...
By Goty on 7/2/2009 8:27:36 AM , Rating: 4
I really hope this bill doesn't pass the senate. This is nothing more than an increased energy tax in another form, except this won't be a fixed amount like a normal tax. I expect to see energy costs skyrocket in the next decade unless we start moving to alternative forms of energy like nuclear power.




RE: Great...
By ccmfreak2 on 7/2/2009 10:28:06 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle in January [2008] that “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket” under his economywide cap-and-trade system that would require power companies and other industries to pay for each ton of greenhouse gas emitted.


Written: 11/09/2008; The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Source: http://www.ajc.com/hawks/content/printedition/2008...


RE: Great...
By Murst on 7/2/2009 11:02:33 AM , Rating: 4
If you want nuclear power, then I don't see why you're against this bill. This bill makes nuclear power even more attractive, as the target of this bill are places that burn coal, oil, and gas for energy.

The biggest problem w/ rolling out new nuclear plants are local governments, not the federal government. People just don't want a nuclear plant near their house.

However, if the traditional forms of energy become expensive enough, more people should open up to the idea of nuclear.


RE: Great...
By Goty on 7/2/2009 1:42:53 PM , Rating: 2
While potentially destroying the finances of millions, yes. Nuclear power is definitely the future, but this is absolutely the worst way to go about it.


RE: Great...
By Murst on 7/2/2009 5:11:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nuclear power is definitely the future, but this is absolutely the worst way to go about it.

Yeah, right! Making nuclear the most affordable is absolutely the wrong way to go. /sarcasm


RE: Great...
By Goty on 7/2/2009 9:28:49 PM , Rating: 2
Making it the cheapest by making everything else prohibitively expensive (bankrupting everyone but the government in the process) seems like a good idea to you?

THIS, ladies and gentlemen, is why we're in the situation we're in right now.


RE: Great...
By Murst on 7/3/2009 1:08:00 AM , Rating: 2
Where do you get the idea that you need to bankrupt everyone in order for nuclear to be the cheapest? Personally, I think we're almost at the breaking point now, and I certainly don't see everyone filing for bankruptcy.

Oil and other diminishing resources will become prohhibitively expensive no matter what the government chooses to do. The reason we're in this situation now is because of people that refuse to acknowledge that.


RE: Great...
By Goty on 7/4/2009 10:53:22 AM , Rating: 2
You say we're almost at the breaking point now, and I assume you're talking about it in terms of price, but that's not the issue here at all. Nuclear power isn't prevalent enough to be a viable replacement for coal as a source of power. Everyone in the US can't immediately make the switch to nuclear power from coal, meaning that raising the operating costs for the power companies will necessarily raise the prices for the vast majority of customers. You don't see anyone going bankrupt right now because everyone still has access to affordable electricity (which will not be the case if this bill is signed into law).

You're absolutely correct when you say fossil fuels will become prohibitively expensive in the future, but making them so artificially benefits nobody except the fools in congress.


useless
By coolkev99 on 7/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: useless
By dgingeri on 7/2/2009 10:03:33 AM , Rating: 1
Colorado passed a requirement for electric companies to use more alternative energy sources about 5 years ago. Our electricity bills have doubled since then. This one, from what I've read of it, requires roughly 3 times the ratio of alternative power generation, which likely means at least another doubling in our electricity bills.

Currently, it costs me $120 per month for my little 700sq foot apartment, and $300 for my sister's 3 bedroom house. We can't afford another doubling.

This is going to lead to major problems for low income people. People are going to have to choose between having refrigeration and light or being able to eat. (We already have tens of thousands who have to choose between heat and food during the winter.) There's also going to be tens of thousands more deaths by heat stroke in southern states, as nursing homes won't be able to afford their air conditioning to keep their residents alive.

This whole bill is a bad idea no matter how you look at it.


RE: useless
By Murst on 7/2/2009 10:41:01 AM , Rating: 4
Well, in Ohio and pretty much the rest of the US, there was no bill that required alternative energy, yet our prices doubled as well. Just because you had a bill signed into law doesn't mean that there are no outside forces driving your prices up.

And in southern Ohio, my electric ranges from $140 to $500 per year, depending on the time of year.


RE: useless
By Murst on 7/2/2009 10:41:55 AM , Rating: 2
that's $140 to $500 per month, depending on the time of year.


RE: useless
By HinderedHindsight on 7/2/2009 11:34:47 AM , Rating: 2
I lived in Southern California during the rolling blackouts in the earlier part of this decade. Prices rose not because they were converting to alternative energy, but because energy execs wanted to make more money. They did this by throttling back the output of the energy grid, thereby driving up prices.

I moved to Washington State three years ago; since then I pay overall less for electricity, and in my city, the consumers get discounts based on the amount alternative energy used (stipulated by law).

The market itself is the central problem, not the sources of energy. And this bill *should* help to make energy cheaper, given that it's laced with incentives to the utility companies.

Do I actually believe that energy will be cheaper as a result? I'm not confident in the idea given the past behavior of utility companies.


RE: useless
By ClownPuncher on 7/2/2009 11:56:11 AM , Rating: 2
Plus, Washington > California !

Are you on Seattle City Light, or Puget Sound Energy?


RE: useless
By ccmfreak2 on 7/2/2009 12:09:27 PM , Rating: 3
I posted it once, and I'll post it again:

quote:
Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle in January [2008] that “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket” under his economywide cap-and-trade system that would require power companies and other industries to pay for each ton of greenhouse gas emitted.


Written: Nov. 9, 2008
Source: http://www.ajc.com/hawks/content/printedition/2008...

The thought that the Federal Government interfering and making things better seems like an oxymoron. I see nothing but higher costs to companies that burn fuel (like many companies do on the east part of the nation at the very least).

Do I actually believe that energy will be cheaper as a result? I have no hope in the idea that this will happen given the past behavior of our Federal Government.


Dead in the Senate
By klstay on 7/2/2009 8:51:42 AM , Rating: 1
There is zero chance of this bill clearing the senate even with the Franken fiasco super-majority now held by democrats. At latest count there are 35 votes at an absolute maximum for this bill, so it really has absolutely no chance of passage. The "problem" for Herr Barry is too many of his otherwise mindless cronies in the senate come from energy states and know they cannot even think about voting for something like this.




RE: Dead in the Senate
By AEvangel on 7/2/2009 11:31:50 AM , Rating: 2
I hope your right cause if this bill passes then we are in a world of hurt. It will just increase the length and damage the recession that was caused by the actions of our Government.

Of course next up will be the costly and OH so not needed Heath Care Reform that they are trying to tell us we need.


RE: Dead in the Senate
By drebo on 7/2/2009 1:06:39 PM , Rating: 3
Well, technically, we do need to reform our heathcare system...but not in the sense that we give it to everyone for free. If the government really wants to lower health insurance and medical costs, they'll enact legislation that penalizes and restricts spurious malpractice lawsuits. It's not the doctors or insurance companies that bloat healthcare costs, it's the litigation.

Remove some of the threat of litigation, and healthcare will become MUCH more affordable.


RE: Dead in the Senate
By FITCamaro on 7/2/2009 1:12:57 PM , Rating: 2
Not only that but they need to get rid of the already existing government health insurance. It does nothing but lower the quality of private insurance because every time Medicare coverage stops covering something, the private insurance companies follow suit a few years later using Medicare as the reason why. Plus it removes people from the private insurance pot which in turn raises costs for everyone else.


RE: Dead in the Senate
By FITCamaro on 7/2/2009 12:57:31 PM , Rating: 2
Let's pray you're right.


RE: Dead in the Senate
By corduroygt on 7/2/2009 7:27:52 PM , Rating: 1
My prayers are with yours and every other Americans' who value their quality of life.
Mick needs to join the Facebook group: Overcoming Liberalism: A 12 step program.


My problems with this
By AlexWade on 7/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: My problems with this
By ccmfreak2 on 7/2/2009 9:17:49 AM , Rating: 5
First of all, I am also wondering why this article is being written on DT 6 days after it occured.

However, I think I know why they want it rushed. First of all, last week could not have been a better time to rush things through the House - with all the celebrity deaths last week, the media practically had their backs turned to congress. And (not trying to be rude or morbid, just truthful) the death of Michael Jackson could not have been at a better time for the supporters of this bill. And if they didn't rush this bill through, then people would have actually had time to respond to what they were trying to pass. I mean, Markey has tens of thousands invested in solar companies that will benefit from this bill, and Al Gore's new computer company would love the idea of electic companies using their software to monitor carbon output (it's got to be measured somehow if this bill passes the senate).

quote:
Did Congress ask the other countries that tried this how well it worked?
Come on, now. That would actually take research and work. You don't actually expect our leaders to WORK now do you? Come on. Be practical.</sarcasm>


RE: My problems with this
By Omega215D on 7/2/2009 11:42:07 AM , Rating: 2
So you're telling me that Al Gore is a Nobel prize winning con-artist? Say it ain't so...


RE: My problems with this
By sdegroft on 7/2/2009 11:11:29 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Why is Congress trying to rush one of the biggest regulations in our history?


It is the same reason Obama is trying to tackle every major problem right away. For at least the next 2 to 4 years the Democrats will have all the power and no one to reign them in. If he doesn't get the stimulus, health care, climate, and government buy out plans done right away he loses his window. It is very frustrating because there is nothing we can do about it now but let this pyscho continue on his merry way. It doesn't matter how loud we scream no one listens. The only way to get them to listen is to vote them out and we put to many wackos in charge this time.


My Favorite Part of this bill is....
By Rugar on 7/2/2009 9:30:05 AM , Rating: 2
The section that is left blank so that our illustrious leaders can write in whatever they want once it is passed.

Seriously.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/01/here-is-the-c...




RE: My Favorite Part of this bill is....
By FITCamaro on 7/2/2009 12:59:24 PM , Rating: 2
....that's just astounding....

Even I hadn't heard of that bit. But then no one had read the bill yet so is it really that surprising?


RE: My Favorite Part of this bill is....
By FITCamaro on 7/2/2009 1:13:40 PM , Rating: 2
I see a liberal reader with multiple accounts went through and rated down anything he didn't like.


By Rugar on 7/2/2009 1:31:24 PM , Rating: 2
Well, we all know that the rating on DT has its flaws. It doesn't bother me that I'm rated down... That's just how it is.

Although... I'm not sure how ANYONE be they liberal, conservative, whatever could look at a giant blank section on a bill which has already been passed by the House and think "Oh, that's no big deal." It's exactly the same as signing a blank check and handing it to a group of people and saying "I trust you to write in the correct amount." That's just frightening that our leadership has become so confident in their power that they are actually voting for a bill that has a freaking blank spot that essentially says "Insert whatever we want here."

/me shudders.


2 things Jason
By FITCamaro on 7/2/2009 12:52:21 PM , Rating: 2
1) Way to be 3 days late.
2) Way to put a positive spin on such a devastating piece of legislation for the American people.




RE: 2 things Jason
By superflex on 7/2/2009 4:12:22 PM , Rating: 3
I love the first line...
"The Waxman-Markey bill, an integral piece of legislation which will help fight global warming"
Jason, could you pull your head out of Obama's ass for five minutes to realize that anthropogenic CO2 has NOTHING to do with climate change?
Please go apply for a blog position with the Huffington Post. You're about as full of bullshit and hot air as those douchebags.


RE: 2 things Jason
By corduroygt on 7/2/2009 7:24:36 PM , Rating: 3
The part about creating new jobs sounds just like SS telling the Jews that the gas chambers were showers.


What a load of crap!
By corduroygt on 7/2/2009 11:31:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The bill proposes the most aggressive carbon cutting plan to date, with provisions to create a "carbon market", which should help to create new jobs and a new section of the economy.


What a load of pure, unadulterated crap. Whoever wrote this piece is so dishonest that they belong in DC.




RE: What a load of crap!
By MrPickins on 7/2/2009 11:47:35 AM , Rating: 2
I couldn't agree more.

Any money floating around the "carbon market" is just as vacuous as the money that was invested in securities derivatives...


RE: What a load of crap!
By corduroygt on 7/2/2009 7:20:59 PM , Rating: 2
If you had invested in securities derivatives, you could at least have AIG insure it for you and then when they blew up, you'd get your money back from the taxpayers. No such thing with carbon credits, they just make you poorer no matter what.


This all ties in
By elgueroloco on 7/3/2009 8:45:04 AM , Rating: 2
The more bills like this get passed, the more energy will cost, and the more people will buy hybrid and electric cars or take public transportation. As more people do that, the revenues from gas tax decrease, so they must replace it with a tax on miles driven, which will be tracked by a GPS unit in your car that reports every trip you make to the gov't. (http://www.dailytech.com/Proposed+2020+BytheMile+R... Either that or you are on public transportation. This way, the government always knows every move you make.

Also, by creating a carbon market, and other AGW-related money sinks, the government has a way of consuming the surplus of production capacity. A carbon market will not "create a new sector of the economy" so much as create a massive burn pit for money that otherwise would have been used to improve our standard of living.

In this way, AGW serves the same purpose for today's left wing that perpetual warfare and Samuel Goldstein serve for the Party in Orwell's 1984.

Funny thing is, Mick raises a scare about the GPS in one article, then promotes Big Brother's warming scare in another. That's some plusgood doublethink there, comrade Jason.




RE: This all ties in
By elgueroloco on 7/3/2009 10:25:59 AM , Rating: 1
Actually, AGW serves the purposes of the left far better than perpetual warfare. Perpetual warfare was a way of consuming a surplus of goods because you couldn't feasibly limit the production of goods. The modern would-be tyrants have found a way though. Limit carbon output. Under the guise of saving the planet, the totalitarians of today can limit the production of consumable goods. And all with the stated intent of making your life better!

quote:
“In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.” --Fyodor Dostoevsky


RE: This all ties in
By elgueroloco on 7/3/2009 10:52:16 AM , Rating: 1
Actually, AGW serves the purposes of the left far better than perpetual warfare. Perpetual warfare was a way of consuming a surplus of goods because you couldn't feasibly limit the production of goods. The modern would-be tyrants have found a way though. Limit carbon output. Under the guise of saving the planet, the totalitarians of today can limit the production of consumable goods. And all with the stated intent of making your life better!

quote:
“In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.” --Fyodor Dostoevsky


RE: This all ties in
By elgueroloco on 7/3/2009 10:57:02 AM , Rating: 2
Ugh. Damn worthless screwy internet connection. Sorry about the repeat post.


huge power/money grab
By spepper on 7/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: huge power/money grab
By zombiexl on 7/2/2009 11:23:13 AM , Rating: 2
Dont forget the part of the bill that makes is harder to be allowed to sell your home.


RE: huge power/money grab
By dhalilahma on 7/2/2009 11:33:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The real weakening, though, came in the form of big concessions to the utility companies. They received tens of billions of dollars in free pollution permits as an assurance that they could continue to build and operate coal-burning plants.


Erm, I've never been to the United States.... do they put something in the water? Please dont get me wrong, I know lots of Americans and they are almost all really good people, I'm not 'anti-american' or anthing, just kinda confused about American politics. Let me get this straight, to stop pollution the government is going to take your money, let polluters continue polluting and reward estate agents?.... nice.


Obama
By computergeek485 on 7/2/2009 8:23:37 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
signed into law by President Barack Obama.


I feel like the title President is no longer fitting, something like czar or Mein Führer would be more fitting for our God President and Savior Barack Obama.
/sarcasm




RE: Obama
By Regs on 7/2/2009 8:30:13 AM , Rating: 2
I'm starting to think hes a robot made by China spies.


Sickening
By Ristogod on 7/2/2009 9:32:56 AM , Rating: 1
It's sickening to see this spun as a positive thing. This bill will not help the environment. It will cause strain on utilities driving costs up and forcing higher taxes. The American people did not want this, yet they voted for it anyway. Our government is out of control. They are driving this country to ruin as they continue to spend needlessly and wastefully moving us ever closer to hyperinflation.

To the author of this article, you should be ashamed of yourself spinning this article in the way you have. Your choice of words are irresponsible and misleading.




RE: Sickening
By Hardin on 7/2/2009 7:30:54 PM , Rating: 2
It really does make me sick to my stomach that people like Jason and our Congressman don't understand how terrible this will be for us. They would risk our way of life just because of some ridiculous theory. Global Warming is a scam people open your eyes!


Mockery, not approval
By brjames on 7/2/2009 9:30:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Representative Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, approved of the deal cutting, though he disliked the bill. He stated, "It is unprecedented, but at least it's transparent."


Ok, I've seen that clip and you're being a little coy. The clip is in one of the final "debates" on the bill, where one supporter is asking on the Congressional floor whether or not some billion dollar subsidy will apply to one of his constituency. Joe Barton is disgusted that the buying and selling of votes is happening on the floor of the House during a "debate". His comment could be rephrased as "my god, they're buying and selling each other on the floor of the House now!"




By d0gb0y on 7/2/2009 12:21:12 PM , Rating: 2
What's unreported in this article is the cost to taxpayers and the American economy. This bill will cost us more then a trillion dollars in lost opportunities, enforcement, job cuts, and higher utility prices. A linked article says Global Warming is estimated to cost $125B. Then pushing people to poverty really increases their life span... Good thing we cutting down that EVIL poison...




HOPE and CHANGE
By Tacoloft on 7/2/2009 12:59:12 PM , Rating: 2
The elitist earth religion of the grand socialist Nanny State to invade all aspects of any remaining perceived freedoms. These clowns have been on an agenda for the last 100 years with their main goal to empower themselves using Nanny State earth religion to fleece America. It's time for the silent majority to get up and vote these clowns out. Civil disobedience and peaceful protests are the only way we can possibly get out of this mire.




By Hardin on 7/2/2009 7:22:31 PM , Rating: 2
If this passes in the sentate we could see or utlity bills raise tremendously. I've seen numbers of up to $3000 dollars annually. This bill would require every house to be up to the California standards(btw California is bankrupt). If you want to sell your house people will have to insepct the a/c, windows, just about everything and if it isn't up to the standards then you wont be able to sell it without spending even more money to meet the standards. This bill will cause people to lose jobs. Companies will go overseas so they wont have to pay the fees. The cap and tax will just offload the costs onto us, the people who pay for the utilites. This is the biggest mistake the House has ever made and it will be very dangerous if it passes the Senate.




"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki