You’d like to think that when the U.S. House passes a bill described as “historic,” it would be with a sizable majority. Not so the energy bill that passed today 219-212. “This is a revolution,” said co-sponsoring Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass. The action keeps House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s promise to pass the bill by the Fourth of July, but so many questions remain as it moves to the Senate. Among them: Will it cost $175 per household (by 2020, according to CBO)? Or $3,100 per household (as the GOP contends, citing MIT data)? No surprise that Kansas Republican Reps. Todd Tiahrt, Jerry Moran and Lynn Jenkins voted “no” while Democrat Dennis Moore voted “yes.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- CapnAmerica on Health care reform would save state money
- DavidB on Open thread 11/22
- writerdog on Health care reform would save state money
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/22
- george on Open thread 11/22
- DorisKing on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- george on Health care reform would save state money
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
228 Comments
Clueless congress is rushing through another major piece of legislation – without reading it. The Cons proved it could not have even been read.
The public is on to the Obama tactics:
1. Declare an emergency.
2. Rush through legislation before the press or anyone can read about it and complain.
I’m feeling a change in the winds.
Obama and his umbrella are going to be flying away soon with no help from anyone but themselves.
BlueJay SINGS
And it’s sweet sweet sweet victory
‘Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) calls out the Republican $3,100 lie‘
http://www.desmogblog.com/congressman-earl-blumenauer-d-ore-calls-out-republican-3100-lie
Enjoy progressives and lovers of America’s bright future. This is the first of many victories!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp3jda591M4
As you can see, this HR bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives but still must be passed by the U.S. Senate. If the Senate makes changes, then the two houses must get together, iron out the differences and vote again.
The bill does contain a lot of changes to how this nation deals with air polluting emissions from power plants etc. Wonder how this will affect the proposed new coal-fired power plant out around Holcomb, Kansas.
I suppose we will hear a lot about the bill over the next few days in the news media.
It is a shame we may be sending fewer dollars to our good friends in Saudi Arabia… ;->
Just another good thing to hold over the heads of the Dumocrats in 2010 as taxes and prices skyrocket while the economy sputters. Cr*p likes this is the reason that no party is in power very long.
Fortunately the Senate won’t pass anything resembling this idiocy. Again, the bill can undone. Not so with the damage.
“The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: “The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap.”
The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.
When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill’s restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.
Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn’t take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others — manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families.
Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won’t pinch wallets, behind the scenes they’ve acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming.
A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain’s Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.” WSJ on line
Evidently cosmos loves calling scientists from M.I.T. liars.
In Germany and U.K., just in one year energy prices spun out of control at 61 and 66 percent respectively.
That is just one year folks – one year.
Imagine five years from now, when your electric, gas or other home heating goes out 300 percent.
You will have the Democratic Party to thank for that.
Oh, and that won’t include the higher taxes for co2 related emissions from agriculture. There will be Paris, France-like prices for your Big Mac – around 8.00 bucks.
Forget about seeing any canned good going for less than $2.00 for a reduced sized can, probably 8-10 ounces instead of 16 ounces.
Gallon of milk? Forget about it, you won’t be able to afford it – get used to quarts or powdered milk.
What? You mean “Big Ears Waxman” didn’t inform the public that one of the industries that is going to be attacked the heaviest in co2 diabolical laws is agriculture?
Massive bankruptcies in Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Illinois and the other farming states when they start getting all those co2 related costs and taxes levied on them.
Get used to eating a lot of artificial whatever, because the real thing will be too expensive to buy.
Yummy…
Jwink I hope you are right. This bill as written is a death knell for some major industries in our country. Not wanting to be meladramatic but someone has to apply reason to this bill and its ramifications.
“Greenpeace: Waxman-Markey climate change bill not strong enough to stop global warming”
At least we both agree it won’t work.
Cosmos – then how do you explain Obama’s comments about how under his cap & pillage program that “electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket…”?
DavidB – how many kwh’s of electricity, MMBTU’s of nat gas, or tons of coal do we import from SA?
But hey, good to see Pelosi could “keep her promise to pass the bill by the Fourth of July”..wouldn’t want anything to stand in the way of her breaking any promises, like having the most transparent/ethical congress ever..where does reading a bill before voting on it fall, under transparency or ethics?
It’s a good thing none of you cons were in on the Apollo project, the Revolution or anything else important.
You have no faith in your country. You are trapped by your stodgy defense of what is is all there is.
You lose.
The EPA Is Wrong
•False Assumptions: Proponents of cap and trade point to the low cost estimates by the EPA and CBO as a reason to pass Waxman-Markey. The EPA underestimates that the bill would cost households an additional $140 a year.
•Based on Consumption: The EPA’s numbers are based on consumption changes, which are typically less than income changes, as families respond to income losses by saving less.
•Uses Discounting: Discounting is a reasonable approach for comparing costs and benefits that occur at widely different times. However, costs of climate change rarely use a discounted rate this high. Without discounting, the impact per household is $1,288 in 2050. Adjusting household size to reflect a family of four raises this cost to over $1,900.
•Assumes Rebates: The EPA assumes all the allowance proceeds will be rebated directly to consumers. This clearly isn’t the case, since most of the allowances have been promised to industry.
•No New Taxes?The loss that the EPA calculates doesn’t include the cost of the energy tax to consumers, since the EPA assumes that all of the money is rebated. The cost of the energy tax is actually $4,600 per family of four in 2035.
Heritage Foundation
BJ – right…I’ve got plenty of faith in my country, I’ve got zero faith in politicians, more specifically progressive politicians. But zero faith in politicians of any stripe, unlike you who believe Obama can wave his magic vocal chords and suddenly wind/solar/ethanol/etc will make economic sense, while the rest of the world pummels us into economic submission, laughing at how stupid progressives are.
A message to the Obama from Bill Clinton.
It’s the economy, Stupid.
The CBO Is Wrong
•False Assumptions: CBO underestimates that the bill would cost households $175 in 2020. They assume that the carbon tax isn’t a tax if the government spends the money. When have Americans ever seen all of a tax returned to them? It’s like suggesting your tax rebate will be as large as the amount taken from your paycheck every year.
•Numbers Don’t Add Up: The CBO’s allowance cost numbers don’t add up. They say the allowance price will be $28. Since there are 5.056 billion tons of CO2 equivalent in the cap that year, that implies a $141 billion gross cost. They list $91.4 billion.
•Hard to Believe: In the CBO’s June 5 analysis, they projected allowance revenues of $119.7 billion, $129.7 billion, $136 billion, $145.6 billion and $152.9 billion for the years 2015-2019. It’s hard to believe that the next number in that series would be $91.4 billion.
•Ignores Economic Damage: The CBO doesn’t include the decrease in GDP as a result of the bill. The GDP hit in 2020 would be $161 billion (in 2009 dollars) according to our analysis. For a family of four, that is $1,870 that they ignore.
Heritage Foundation
Evidently Regular loves calling the MIT professor and one of the authors of the report inaccurately cited by Republicans a liar.
BlueJay
Posted June 26, 2009 at 9:18 pm | Permalink
It’s a good thing none of you cons were in on the Apollo project, the Revolution or
anything else important.
====================================
Glad you brought that up BlueJay, here is a statement from one of the last men to walk on the moon.
Harrison “Jack” Schmitt, one of the last men to walk on the moon and a former U.S. senator from New Mexico, doesn’t buy the idea that humans are causing global warming.
In 1965, he joined the National Aeronautics and Space Administration as a member of the first group of scientist-astronauts and the only geologist among them. In 1972, he flew to the moon on the last lunar mission, Apollo 17. He and fellow astronaut Gene Cernan descended to the moon’s surface on the Apollo Lunar Module — making them the last people to walk on the moon.
“As a geologist, I love Earth observations,” he wrote in his Nov. 14 resignation letter.
“But, it is ridiculous to tie this objective to a ‘consensus’ that humans are causing global warming when human experience, geologic data and history, and current cooling can argue otherwise.
” ‘Consensus,’ as many have said, merely represents the absence of definitive science.
You know as well as I, the ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society’s activities.”
============================
Dr. “Senator” Harrison “Jack” Schmitt made this prediction about AGW long ago and he was
accurate in making it.
. . . Heritage Foundation
. . . Heritage Foundation
LOL!
In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country’s new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country’s weeks-old cap-and-trade program. WSJ
Bluejay I guess my question to you is when did your hatred start and why do you want to see your own country turned into a third world country because some people have more than you do?
You are much sadder than anyone I have ever met. I hope for your sake that the hatred you carry is something you can let go.
As for this bill. It will never pass congress in the shape it currently is in. Senators want to be reelected and this would be a real show stopper for them.
This was Pelosi show from the beginning. She will have bragging rights over the 4th and then calmer heads will prevail.
The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. — 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)
The collapse of the “consensus” has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth’s temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon. WSJ
. . . DesmogBlog
. . . DesmogBlog
LOL!
This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on “unconvincing green science.” The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter. WSJ
AmWay the evidence is all around us and the closeness of today’s vote tell me that politicans are listening. We need to stay vigilant in our emails, phone calls and letters so they will know the importance of defeating this bill.
Evidently cosmos loves calling the MIT professor and one of the authors of the report inaccurately cited by the desmogblog liars.
Harrison Schmitt’s opinion, versus actual science?
President Vaclav Klaus’ opinion, versus actual science?
BTW: Joanne Simpson does not disagree with the AGW theory.
Agreed OKObserver. 8 House republicans crossed over to the dark side on this. Looking at the final numbers, it would not have passed without them.
Need to learn who they are so we can work that angle too.
This bill was rushed through. Many people I know who have been concerned with the democrats quick moves were caught unaware by this one. Maybe it was the rush being overshadowed by Michael Jackson,Michael Jackson,Michael Jackson,Michael Jackson,Michael Jackson,Michael Jackson,Michael Jackson,Michael Jackson,Michael Jackson,Michael Jackson,Michael Jackson news all day on all media sources.
Served as a good distraction. The senate hopefully will present a more formible task and hopefully people will respond in time.
PS: Did you hear about Michael Jackson?
Sen. Steve Fielding?
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/embarrassing-questions/
cosmos_originally
Posted June 26, 2009 at 9:38 pm | Permalink
Harrison Schmitt’s opinion, versus actual science?
==========================
That’s “Senator” Dr. Harrison Schmitt to you “warmer-boy”, cosmos-the-non-scientist.
“Just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing. Consensus doesn’t prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe.”
“About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey …”
That makes it true.
Harrison Schmitt’s opinion, versus actual science?
Who you going to believe? The CBO, or the GOP?
“Who you going to believe? The CBO, or the GOP?”
Fair enough. I might as you the same thing regardin the true cost of the 2009 Recovery Act. 3.6 trillion
by CBO.
Who you going to believe? The CBO, or Obama?
Ask, regarding. (getting late for me)
True or false?
“Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report — updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 250 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore’s claims that the “science is settled” and there is a “consensus.” On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears.
In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 as the year the “consensus” collapsed. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,” and a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.”
This new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition challenging significant aspects of the claims of the UN IPCC and Al Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: ‘2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC”
AmWay these are the republicans who switched over.
Mary Bono, Michael Castle, Mark Kirk, Leonard Lance, Frank LoBiondo, John McHugh, David Reichert, Christopher Smith.
Bono I know is CA. Not sure on the others.
We need to make sure others in their states know what they did and also notify any email buddies in their states.
“Will it cost $175 per household (by 2020, according to CBO)? Or $3,100 per household (as the GOP contends, citing MIT data)?”
A principal in the MIT study wrote a letter on how the data in it was being misused and misrepresented…
But how can an anti-science mob be expected to treat science with respect?
These are the dems who voted no. We need to make sure there know we appreciate it.
Jason Altmire, Michael Arcuri, John Barrow, Marion Berry, Dan Boren, Bobby Bright, Christopher Carney, TRAVIS Childers, Jim Costa, Jerry Costello, Kathy Dahlkemper, Lincoln Davis, Artur Davis, Peter DeFazio, Joe Donnelly, Chet Edwards, Brad Ellsworth, Bill Foster, Parker Griffith, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Tim Holden, Ann Kirkpatrick, Larry Kissell, Dennis Kucinich, Jim Marshall, Eric Massa, Jim Matheson, Mike McIntyre, Charles Melancon, Walt Minnick, Harry Mitchell, Alan Mollohan, Glenn Nye, Solomon Ortiz, Earl Pomeroy, Nick Rahall, Ciro Rodriguez, Mike Ross, John Salazar, Pete Stark, John Tanner, Gene Taylor, Peter Visclosky, Charles Wilson
ST. PETERSBURG, January 15 (RIA Novosti) – Rising levels of carbon dioxide and other gases emitted through human activities, believed by scientists to trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere, are an effect rather than the cause of global warming, a prominent Russian scientist said Monday.
Habibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory, said global warming stems from an increase in the sun’s activity. His view contradicts the international scientific consensus that climate change is attributable to the emission of greenhouse gases generated by industrial activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.
“Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity,” Abdusamatov told RIA Novosti in an interview.
“It is no secret that when they go up, temperatures in the world’s oceans trigger the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man’s industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations.”
When asked about nations promoting so-called cap and trade laws to lower the CO2 levels which are an effect of global warming, the scientist replied, “Oh well if it will increase revenue for the states, and grants for research at my university, then I support good ole Al Gore.”
Turn coats not to be provided campaign contributions and to be defeated in their next election:
Mary Bono, Michael Castle, Mark Kirk, Leonard Lance, Frank LoBiondo, John McHugh, David Reichert, Christopher Smith.
We need to make sure others in their states know what they did and also notify any email buddies in their states.
Doing my part. Thanx
David there is very compelling evidence from the scientific community that supports the fact that GW isn’t happening. The evidence is on their side. The opposition throws models out that they say ‘point’ to the fact that GW is real.
Experts have also predicted that this bill if it passes both houses will set our economy back 30 years. Are you ready to take that chance with this streamlined bill that had to be passed before it could be read?
I believe in the ability of the nation to be better okie.
All YOU believe in is your own privelidged status and protecting it.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/04/mit-scientist-republicans-confused-about-my-climate-change-study.php?page=1
MIT scientist says Republican press release cites a figure ten times higher than the MIT study suggests…..
Democrats in congress are Obama lap dogs. I’m sure at least some of them wanted time to digest and maybe even READ the entire 1,500 pages of the bill.
But noooooooooooooo, Obama calls and directs them to just vote on the darn thing. Don’t bother reading it!
Lap Dogs.
DavidB, one scientist? He disagrees so that makes him right?
Well Bluejay I believe we live in a pretty great country right now. It is a land where our freedoms were bought with hard work and the bravery of our military.
Anyone with the desire to excell can. We have this privilege because our forefathers had the foresight to draft a constitution that give us that chance.
The forefathers never intended for the federal government to take control of the populus and limit their freedoms.
You will come to realize this someday.
Numbers Don’t Add Up: The CBO’s allowance cost numbers don’t add up. They say the allowance price will be $28. Since there are 5.056 billion tons of CO2 equivalent in the cap that year, that implies a $141 billion gross cost. They list $91.4 billion.
•Hard to Believe: In the CBO’s June 5 analysis, they projected allowance revenues of $119.7 billion, $129.7 billion, $136 billion, $145.6 billion and $152.9 billion for the years 2015-2019. It’s hard to believe that the next number in that series would be $91.4 billion.
“You will come to realize this someday.”
I’m skeptical.
okobserver
Posted June 26, 2009 at 10:09 pm | Permalink
These are the dems who voted no. We need to make sure there know we appreciate it.
———–
Good to know that there are a few thinkers in the party. Not enough though, to save our country’s economy from the damage the rest of the party is trying to inflict on it.
This bill is about much more than carbon emissions. It is about building new industries and technologies to sustain America’s energy needs going forward, as well as extracting us from the increasingly unstable petroleum economy.
A historic beginning for America.
Physics professor William Happer GS ’64 has some tough words for scientists who believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming.
“This is George Orwell. This is the ‘Germans are the master race. The Jews are the scum of the earth.’ It’s that kind of propaganda,” Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, said in an interview. “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that’s a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult.”
Happer served as director of the Office of Energy Research in the U.S. Department of Energy under President George H.W. Bush and was subsequently fired by Vice President Al Gore, reportedly for his refusal to support Gore’s views on climate change.
Yes, I will take the word of the scientist whose OWN WORK was falsely misrepresented by the Republicans.. Duh!!
Just checked MSNBC. Michael Jackson is still dead.
Implementing a cap-and-trade program to cut emissions by 70 percent creates a transfer within the United States that is equivalent to taxes on the order of $250 billion to $300 billion per year, just for the years 2012 to 2030. The combined transfer is about $5 trillion in just the first 20 years. This takes the purchasing power from the households and turns it over to the federal government or to whomever the government assigns the rights to the permits for emissions (allowances). This would be one of the largest taxes in the economy–almost twice as large as the highway use taxes.
Because the transfer, in this case, is similar in magnitude to the lost GDP, we need to be clear on the distinction. A cap-and-trade program with an emissions reduction profile similar to that of last year’s Lieberman-Warner bill, will cause an aggregate $5 trillion of transfers after it destroys $4.8 trillion of national income (GDP
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/tst050709b.cfm
————-
This is from a Heritage Foundation article. I have found their information is very reliable.
As you can see the impact on the GDP alone would cripple our economy. Add to this the increas in energy cost and the poorest among us will take the brunt of it.
Sound bites are great for willing elections but not so great for running a country. Obama breaks new promises everyday. If the easily led are allowed to set the rules then we are indeed in trouble.
Bluejay what is your solution to this problem. You are always telling us what is wrong. What would you do to solve the loss of jobs that will come if this train wreck of a bill is allowed to stand?
David can you give us one example of ‘the things this bill will do’ to improve jobs, decrease energy comsumption, increase the GDP, make a better environment for business to operate in… Just to name a few.
You seem to know more details than I do. Share them with us. Just answer all or even a few of the things I mentioned above.
Exclusive Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission.
Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN’s IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside.
Advertisement
One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased.
The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) is astonishing rebuke to international pressure, and a vote of confidence in Japan’s native marine and astronomical research.
Don’t Be Fooled — Obama Wants to Raise EVERYONE’S Taxes
When he was running for president Obama promised, over and over, that he would cut taxes for the 95% of Americans making less than $250,000 per year. He pledged that his tax increases would only apply to the top 5% of Americans making over $250,000. Yet Obama fully supported passage of the House cap-and-trade tax bill. If the bill reaches his desk, your taxes are going up.
On Friday, the House of Representatives passed today cap-and-trade tax legislation designed to reduce carbon emissions by raising the prices of oil, gasoline, natural gas, coal, home heating oil, and anything else that produces carbon dioxide emissions, believed to be the main culprit behind supposed global warming. That is estimated to increase costs per family by an estimated $1,600 to $3,200 each year.
The tax cut for 95% of Americans turned out to be a little $400 per worker tax credit, less than $8 per week, just for this year and next. Under the recently passed Democrat budget, that tax cut is gone after next year.
That will be replaced instead with the new cap-and-trade cost burden that will be paid by everyone in the prices of everything we buy, but particularly in electricity (primarily produced by burning fossil fuels), gasoline, natural gas, home heating oil, and food.
Democrats pushing the bill have recently argued that the total costs per family will be trivial, as low as $80 or $175 per year. But the whole purpose of the bill is to raise the price of using carbon-based energy to reduce its use, 17% by 2020 and 83% by 2050. That is probably going to require even more than $3,000 per family per year.
The bill will also result in millions of lost jobs and a weakened economy due to high cost energy. Remaining manufacturing in America will flee overseas. The coal industry will be phased out.
All of this just as the global warming fantasy is intellectually collapsing. Global atmospheric temperatures measured most accurately by satellites have shown declining temperatures for the past 11 years, with the decline accelerating most recently. The latest science explains the twists and turns of temperature trends in the 20th century as due to natural causes. Countries around the world such as France, Poland, Australia, the Czech Republic, and New Zealand are turning against cap-and-trade tax burdens for their own countries, and China and India have rejected the idea for their emerging economies all along. Even global warming advocates admit that the bill passed by the House tonight will have no significant effect in reducing global warming, despite all of its costs for the America people. The science behind the theory of man-made global warming has been thoroughly rebutted in a new 880 page book just released by the Heartland Institute appropriately titled “Climate Change Reconsidered.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/06/26/obamas-tax-increase-americans/
( Don’t believe me? Just look at the fights in the House to get the bill to pass – congressmen from states that might be hurt had to be enticed to vote yes. WHY IS THAT IF IT WON’T HURT?
Use your common sense.
Setting aside the scientific questions that surround GW and just looking at the economic ramifications:
“The Congressional Budget Office estimates that reducing the level of CO2 to 15% less than the total level of U.S. emissions in 2005 would require permit prices that would increase the cost of living of a typical household by $1,600 a year. To put that $1,600 carbon tax in perspective, a typical family of four with earnings of $50,000 now pays an income tax of about $3,000. The tax imposed by the cap-and-trade system is therefore equivalent to raising the family’s income tax by about 50%.
The Waxman-Markey bill that the House of Representatives votes on today would cause an even greater initial rise in the cost of living by its requirement to cut CO2 emissions to 17% less than the 2005 level of emissions rather than the 15% reduction assumed in the CBO estimates. (European officials are, moreover, calling for the United States to agree to a much bigger initial cut — 20% less than the U.S. emission level in 1990.)”
Will we have a nation to save by 2010 if this kind of poorly thoughtout idiocy is allowed to go forward?
Note Bluejay and David the CBO – Obama’s own budget office said it would be $1,600 per year per family – going higher in later years.
Last week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released their analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill that had proponents of the bill claiming Americans could save the planet for just $175 per household. That was the figure CBO estimated cap and trade would cost households in 2020 alone.[1]
Both the CBO’s analysis and the subsequent legislation are troubled: The analysis grossly underestimates economic costs while the legislation will have virtually no impact on climate. Overall, there are a number of basic problems with CBO’s analysis:
Their allowance cost numbers do not add up;
They ignore economic costs such as the decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) as a result of the bill; and The analysis is an accounting analysis, not an economic analysis.
Problems with Costs and Distribution of Allowances
The CBO’s June 19 study projected that the allowance price–the price to emit carbon dioxide–will be $28 per ton of CO2 in 2020.[2] Since there are 5.056 billion tons of CO2 equivalent in the cap that year (the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases businesses are allowed to emit), this projection implies a $141 billion gross cost; however, CBO lists the cost as $91.4 billion. Although there were no changes to the bill between June 5 and June 19, the CBO projected allowance revenues of $119.7 billion, $129.7 billion, $136 billion, $145.6 billion, and $152.9 billion for the years 2015-2019. As the cap on carbon dioxide becomes more stringent, one would expect the allowance revenue to continue to climb, not dramatically decrease to $91.4 billion.[3]
Ignoring Economic Pain
Most problematic is the CBO’s complete omission of the economic damage resulting from restricted energy use. As footnote 3 on page 4 of the CBO analysis reads, “The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap. The reduction in GDP would also include indirect general equilibrium effects, such as changes in the labor supply resulting from reductions in real wages and potential reductions in the productivity of capital and labor.”[4] In The Heritage Foundation’s analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation, the GDP hit in 2020 was $161 billion (2009 dollars). For a family of four, that translates into $1,870–a pretty big chunk of change that the CBO is ignoring.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/26/cbo_grossly_underestimates_cost_of_cap_and_trade.html
Sigh…
The bill contains the following key provisions:
Requires electric utilities to meet 20% of their electricity demand through renewable energy sources and energy efficiency by 2020.
Invests $190 billion in new clean energy technologies and energy efficiency, including energy efficiency and renewable energy ($90 billion in new investments by 2025), carbon capture and sequestration ($60 billion), electric and other advanced technology vehicles ($20 billion), and basic scientific research and development ($20 billion).
Mandates new energy-saving standards for buildings, appliances, and industry.
Reduces carbon emissions from major U.S. sources by 17% by 2020 and over 80% by 2050 compared to 2005 levels. Complementary measures in the legislation, such as investments in preventing tropical deforestation, will achieve significant additional reductions in carbon emissions.
Protects consumers from energy price increases. According to recent analyses from the Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency, the legislation will cost each household less than 50 cents per day in 2020 (not including energy efficiency savings).
http://energycommerce.house.gov/
“Will we have a nation to save by 2010 if this kind of poorly thoughtout idiocy is allowed to go forward?”
What I don’t understand is why democrats are so anxious for America to fail? With unemployment rates at 11% and rising, jobs still being lost, and the nation in recession – why risk this?
There is admittedly a risk to jobs going overseas, jobs closing, a trade war (with those producing nations without capntrade), higher utility costs, higher cost for consumer products causing Americans to stop spending.
It makes no sense to rush this through.
Is there a meteor heading toward earth or something?
David impressive but tell me where mandates and requirements improve the economy that is struggling, provides jobs for many out of work people, ‘increases’ the GDP, improve the business atmosphere for manufacturers so they will stay in the US and not move even more jobs off shore.
I think you might have missed the point.
Protects consumers from energy price increases. According to recent analyses from the Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency, the legislation will cost each household less than 50 cents per day in 2020 (not including energy efficiency savings).
————
David I know you are somewhat intelligent so I will just ask you a simple question here – you say it saves comsumers from ‘energy price increases’. Who will save them from the necessary price increases that will have to come from the manufacturers to cover the massive increases they will see?
“What I don’t understand is why democrats are so anxious for America to fail? With unemployment rates at 11% and rising, jobs still being lost, and the nation in recession – why risk this?” [AmWay]
And still the boy cries WOLF…
And chicken little still sees the sky falling…
And so it goes… ad infinitum, ad nauseum…
“BlueJay SINGS
And it’s sweet sweet sweet victory”—BlowJ
No dumba&s, there are two houses of congress and one has yet to decide.
What the dumba&s seems unable to comprehend, what’s new, is that this will hurt the poor and middle class far more than those that are wealthy…..those that the dumba&s thinks he wants to hurt. The pain will show up in everything from food to fuel to heating and cooling all the things the poor pay for as well as the rich and it will impact them far more.
Why so full of hate and envy there BlowJ, eh dumba&$.
My posts are full of joy bawks. It seems yours are full of anger.
I know why. So do you.
Change is here!
Agreed, BlueJay.
For thirty years, the CONs have been telling us that the only people who can do anything right are rich CEO’s. Government? Government is the enemy!
Well, now that the rich CEO’s busted our economy, destroyed GM, the once biggest corporation in the world and tell us that our future is “Wal-Mart,” Americans have had it.
We have had it.
Nobody except for the Bush dead enders are buying it any more. We bought what they were selling and it FAILED.
Miserably.
Obama might not be as much change as fast as we Libs wanted it, but, damn, he’s doing a helluva lot for just getting started.
YES, WE CAN.
The response of the CONs?
Impotent rage.
Get used to it, boys. FDR is back, except this time he’s black.
Business is out of Government and Government is into business!
Regular is not a scientist. Regular is not a scientist. Regular is not a scientist.
Hmmmm . . . that is supposed to scroll . . .
Regular is not a scientist . . . Regular is not a scientist . . . Regular is not a scientist.
Regular
Is Not A Scientist!
Wow . . . they let the worst kind of content fly on this WEBsite . . . but try to plug in a photo or some interesting HTML code, forget it.
Test
Test again
Get your financial houses in order, middle class Americans, the energy tax tsunami is about to make landfall. It’s a shame those of us who pay our fair share of taxes won’t receive assistance with OUR energy bills.
This legislative monstrosity was passed only because turncoat Republicans were bribed at the eleventh hour with your tax dollars. That seems to be the order of the day in Washington D.C. now: vote for something you haven’t read because someone offers you tax dollars for your favorite project. Shameful. Call your Senator tonight and leave a message urging him to do everything he can to stop this lunacy in its tracks.
<
If it passes the Senate (doubtful) you WILL live to regret it, progressives.
Count on it. Guaranteed. One cannot wave a wand and repeal the realities of economics; not even The One.
Remember that tax cut for “95% of Americans?” It was always BS, and the House just passed a tax increase that would eat up all your ’savings,’ and more.
This is Change we can’t afford.
“GMC70″ posts on his own time for a change –
“One cannot wave a wand and repeal the realities of economics….”
Nope.
And no one is claiming that.
The celebrated George WMD Bush said in one of his State of the Union addresses “America must break its addiction to fossil fuels.”
Shrub had his problems with competence when he was in the White House, but ya gotta give him credit: the guy knew is way in and around addiction.
So where’s all this “clean coal” technology you CONs have promoted? Install that in coal-fired plants and Cap & Trade will be a boon for rate-payers.
Build a 21st Century power grid and wind farms and the Saudis will go back to trading camels instead of Maseratis.
And we’ll put a Starbuck’s inside the Kaaba.
(It’s the American way!)
Or we can keep America’s knickers in a CON wad and burn dead dinosaurs for as long as they hold out.
“This is Change we can’t afford.”
I’ve met you GMC. I don’t think you’ve missed many meals.
$3,100? Where did the Republicans drag up that number? There is no MIT study that says that. Oh right, it’s the Republicans. You know, the same folks that said Bush would be running a surplus with his massive tax cuts. Must be some of that fuzzy math at work. If the Republicans say it will cost a lot then we should expect that we won’t notice a change in our bills.
However, if they are successful in promoting the meme then the utilities will have plenty of excuses to raise rates and the people conned by the cons will accept it. Kinda like when Enron raised electricity rates and blamed it on Al Gore.
“My posts are full of joy bawks. It seems yours are full of anger.”—BlowJ
Your posts are full of jealous envy and contempt for anyone who has had a work ethic such that they have achieved more than you.
And yes, simply knowing there are parasitic slugs such as you trying to pull the community of man down does anger me.
My release from that though is knowing you will continue to reap exactly what you sow and that ain’t much. Ha!
I wonder how many of these people actually READ this bill before voting on it? Sort of like the ’stimulus’ bill….vote without reading or understanding it.
Like what is coming to light now–the $4500 “clunker rebate” is actually worthless, according to MSN. However….it will create jobs–in the federal government. Are those some of the 150,000 ’saved jobs’ that bho continues to fantasize about?
“I wonder how many of these people actually READ this bill before voting on it?”
at somewhere between 1000 and 1200 pages, introdiced the day before, and a 300 page amendment introduced at 3 am the day of the vote, I would guess nearly zero of those voting had any idea what was in it. After all, the devil is in the details, something they apparently weren’t given time to find out. Pelosi pushed this thru like a steamroller. That alone should have been enough to vote no.
O’Bama: I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.
Except for:
Energy Taxes
Health Insurances Taxes
capital gains tax hike
Death taxes
Soda Tax
Cigarette Tax
(list grows and grows)
I think most of the public is against this cap and trade bill (energy bill). We can’t afford to be overun by the politicians. This means more taxes and loss of freedoms. There is no global warming that man can control.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090627/ap_on_go_co/us_climate_bill
As with most bumper-sticker platitudes (CONs’ favorite form of political discourse) something like–
“The Devil is in the Details”
…is countered by–
“Don’t sweat the small stuff.”
Like it or not, legislation for a nation of 350 million people has to include a lot of minutia which would change or affect nothing about key policy; stuff like, what pay grade an employee starts at for which department, who answers to whom, which fleet supplies the program’s automobiles or what rate is reimbursed when employees use their personal automobile….
As smug as “littlejohn” sounds with his proverbial “Devil,” it’ just as true Toad Tiahrt, Jerry Moron, and Loan Jenkins didn’t read the bill they voted against.
That, too, is dereliction of duty.
Right, CONs?
mh…your logic is flawed. It makes much more sense to vote AGAINST enacting legistation that has admitted errors and problems with it than to blindly enact a NEW LAW with consequences nobody really understands. Even your savior, bho, admitted there is ‘work to do’ saying there are things that have to be corrected in that legislation.
Voting against flawed legislation is vastly preferable to voting for something that is unknown, rushed, poorly crafted and not understood.
Get used to it cons. This is just the first of many defeats for you.
#
BlueJay
Posted June 27, 2009 at 9:44 am | Permalink
Get used to it cons. This is just the first of many defeats for you.
————————–
LIBs, get used to being unarmed, this bill will increase crime.
Obama is striving to increase poverty, which in turn will increase violent crime.
Good job LIBs.
george posted June 27, 2009 at 9:33 am
There is no global warming that man can control.
——————-
Yet another opinion, versus actual science on this thread, from “george”.
Crime is caused by social and economic injustice and is a function of greed. That is the stuff of cons.
Progressives are selfless, thinking only of others and in this case the planet.
#
BlueJay
Posted June 27, 2009 at 9:54 am | Permalink
Crime is caused by social and economic injustice and is a function of greed. That is the stuff of cons.
Progressives are selfless, thinking only of others and in this case the planet.
—————————
How are those spam and mac&cheese meals tasting when your progressive heart throb CapnAmerica saunters off to Europe on luxurious vacations?
mh..I have attended and at various times testified in committee hearings in 3 states as well as DC. Several times, I have seen bills turned down in committee simply because there was not enough information about the consequences or the wording. That is vastly more responsible than rushing thru legislation ssimply because bho wants it.
For all anyone knows, this bill could prevent private ownership of cars–and nobody knows it. Voting against this huge, rushed and unknown legislation was responsible, logical and preferable to rushing something thru that nobody knows.
I can just imagine what the rushed thru health care bill will look like–maybe requiring monthly appointments only by last name like car license registations? Who knows…the way our government is irresponsibly rushing thru legislation, anything could happen.
BlueJay
Posted June 27, 2009 at 9:54 am | Permalink
Crime is caused by social and economic injustice and is a function of greed. That is the stuff of cons.
===============================================
Good luck telling that to your energy provider that will be hiking your bill to extremes, thanks to ‘progressives’.
Also, tell that to the people who will be stealing your schitt to pay for their bills, thanks to progressives.
Damn, you are ignorant.
BlueJay,
The rich will do just fine if this bill passes, you and I…not so much, then it’s hunting season…Is that what you want?
If Congress doesn’t pass the current bill, an even stronger bill will probably be passed in the future.
The AGW issue will not go away, and the need to sharply cut CO2 emissions will increase in the coming years.
The longer we continue to delay the emission cuts, the stronger/sharper the cuts will have to be.
Give it a rest Hank.
I wonder if Troy would be proud of you, BlueJay.
You are so self destructive and do not realize the ramifications of your actions.
Did Hank ever figure out what a virtual office is?
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2009/06/open-thread-625-3/#comment-610863
BlueJay sings…
ch ch CHANGES!
continue singing, bj…and remember:
All change is not growth, as all movement is not forward. ~Ellen Glasgow
Blue Jay sings…. baaaaaaaaaaaaa
*sigh*….I quote a Pulitzer prize winning novelist, and bj responds with noises….
oh well, what did I expect, rational discussion? HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA….
Heckler cries…waaaaaaah!
Please do not confuse me with Heckler there raptor.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
BJ
You are too stupid to realize that your standard of living just took a much bigger hit than mine did.
I imagine Troy worked damn hard for what he got, BlueJay on the other hand….
BJ
…too stupid to realize that your standard of living just took a much bigger hit than mine did.
…AND….it won’t make a fiddlers demn to the environment.
Regular wrote: O’Bama: I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
__________
You left off two of the biggest tax increases coming. Inflation from the printing presses & rising interest rates from the excessive borrowing that can’t find takers anymore.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/AMBSL
“The Adjusted Monetary Base is the sum of currency (including coin) in circulation outside Federal Reserve banks and the U.S. Treasury, plus deposits held by depository institutions at Federal Reserve banks. This report is updated monthly by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.”
Just since Aug’ 08, they’ve doubled the money supply, so when the price of everything rises because dollars are worth less, it’s a regressive tax on everyone.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
The difference between us (please let it EVER be so) Heckler is that I think bigger than just myself.
We have been on a path with no realistic strategy for the future and a focus not just on the here and now but the right here, right now. For some, that has been comfortable, even profitable. Now, American innovation can be let loose again. I can understand why you would be afraid of that. I embrace it.
Or, to borrow one of MY favorite lines…
“I’d p1$$ on a spark plug if I thought it would help.”
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
#
Heckler
Posted June 27, 2009 at 10:25 am | Permalink
BJ
…too stupid to realize that your standard of living just took a much bigger hit than mine did.
…AND….it won’t make a fiddlers demn to the environment.
============================
That is what pi$$es me off! The middle class is going to take the biggest hit, to solve nothing.
Thanks Libs.
The poor are going to take the biggest hit!
Tax em’
Tax em’
BJ
“Now, American innovation can be let loose again”
To do what exactly?
“You are too stupid to realize that your standard of living just took a much bigger hit than mine did.”
And aside from not being selfishly motivated, I don’t HAVE a lot further to fall.
But I do have a knack for landing on my feet.
THAT is what makes Americans and human beings in general great. We are at our very best when things are worst.
#
BlueJay
Posted June 27, 2009 at 10:30 am | Permalink
“I’d p1$$ on a spark plug if I thought it would help.”
==========================
Some how, I could picture BlueJay standing on the hood of a car with a running engine attempting to perform this feat.
Only the brain dead would use such analogies.
“The poor are going to take the biggest hit!”
Yeah I trust that from the hobby goatherd.
ANYTIME a con expresses concern for the poor you gotta know that it is themselves they are afraid for.
Heckler – you beat me to the keyboard on the “innovation let loose again” comment…apparently a multi-trillion dollar global energy market has been waiting to be exploited by those greedy business folk, because they hadn’t gotten the go ahead from cap & tax legislation…the explanation should be riveting!
Well BlueJay, if this bill passes…
I will no longer be able to afford to teach youth about our fisheries, because I can’t afford a $50,000 boat or the fuel.
I will not be able to teach our youth about camping, plants, and allow them to see nature and how it is conserved in today’s environment.
The business that I wished to run to HELP the G.D. environment will be ruined!
BlueJay
Posted June 27, 2009 at 10:40 am | Permalink
“The poor are going to take the biggest hit!”
Yeah I trust that from the hobby goatherd.
==========================
You are truly the stupidest SOB I’ve ever run a crossed.
I am done.
It’s my guess this bill will be better than your OBVIOUSLY heartfelt concern for the “G. D.’d environment”.
Yes, we know.
“ANTI” goes full Lincoln/Douglas with –
“You are truly the stupidest SOB I’ve ever run a crossed.”
And with that, “ANTI” thinks he won the debate.
More of that thoughtful, informed discourse “okobserver” loves about CONs on WE Blog.
Bluejay people like you that are content living off the crumbs of the working population will find those ‘crumbs’ few and far between. That would be your senior citizen mom. No healthcare for the old people. As Tom Daschle and Ted Kennedy say old people have to learn to get by with less healthcare. So kiss mom goodbye if she gets a serious ailment. Hope she never needs a hip or knee replacement.
This energy bill and then the socialized medicine bill will hurt you much more than me at this point.
Hopefully there are libs in congress with better sense than the blog poster here.
ANTI posted June 27, 2009 at 10:42 am
Well BlueJay, if this bill passes…
I will no longer be able to afford to teach youth about our fisheries, because I can’t afford a $50,000 boat or the [fossil] fuel.
———————
Great irony there, ANTI.
Re the Earth’s youth. . .
Because we don’t think about future generations, they will never forget us. – Henrik Tikkanen
Look!!
Another con is con cerned about the poor!
A woman who makes her living exploiting prison labor is thinking (wishing?) about how bad this is gonna be for me and my mother. I am overcome!
And here I was thinking cons had no heart.
Why just the passage of this bill has uncovered a FOUNTAIN of con passion for the downtrod! It’s a miracle!
Have you read the bill, BlueJay?
Do you even know what is in the bill other than it’s name, BlueJay?
I speak con.
Let me translate for okie.
“If this hurts me in ANY way, I aint taking it! I’ll make my employees suffer. Talk to me about conservation and I’m thinking about conserving what I got.”
Okie sings..
I wanna talk about me
I wanna talk about my
wanna talk about number one oh my me my!
Have you read the bill, BlueJay?
Do you even know what is in the bill other than it’s name, BlueJay?
BlueJay, this will not hurt the rich.
#
ANTI
Posted June 27, 2009 at 11:10 am | Permalink
Have you read the bill, BlueJay?
Do you even know what is in the bill other than it’s name, BlueJay?
Well Jr you want to deflect and that is ok. It’s no skin off my nose when you get what you are voting for.
BTW I would bet a month of my salary against a month of yours that I have done more for the poor and disabled this month than you have.
You are all mouth and no action.
BJ when you are low man on the totem pole as you tell us you are – then you do know you will be the first one crushed. Watch the soup lines get longer. Watch the big ‘carbon credit’ sellers get even richer.
You are so blinded by your own hatred that you can’t see what this bill is actually doing.
Okie sings..
I wanna talk about me
I wanna talk about my
wanna talk about number one oh my me my!
————
Blowhard where in what I wrote did I talk about byself? I don’t think I have ever met anyone quite like you. Hopefully they threw away the mold.
And yes I do feel sorry for your poor mom and your son. You not so much.
Well there must be a provision in there that activated the con cern for the poor among the not poor.
Thing aint even law yet and we have this mass outgassing of phony con love.I wonder if we can harness the hot air?
Have you read the bill, BlueJay?
Do you even know what is in the bill other than it’s name, BlueJay?
Why is it wrong to vote FOR a bill not fully read, but OK to vote AGAINST a bill not fully read?? Seems like it might be wrong in BOTH cases… not just those voting YES…
But, there’s that CON logic again!! LOL
ooops CON logic is an oxymoron…. I forgot..
Chas,
The “logic” is that if you do not fully understand something you vote no until you get a chance. It is the responsible thing to do.
What was the hurry anyhow?
Why exactly couldn’t the Democrats have let the American people and Congress read the bill over the 4th of July break and then come back to vote on it after everyone had a chance to read it and educate themselves?
The reason is because the Democrats barely passed this bill by beating their members down, twisting arms, and buying people off.
The vote was 219-212. If a handful of Democrats had defected as did many others, it wouldn’t have passed. That is why they had to rush it through.
I think we will see some outrage at this once the American people have a chance to read it and hear about it prior to any Senate action.
Watch people start looking around instead of looking up.
American creativity and innovation is a renewable resource. And we haven’t tapped it in a good while. If anything, this bill does not go far enough.
Maybe I’m the optimist for this thread because for me, things can’t get a lot worse. I have to concede that.
But I also must note the dishonest concern, SUDDENLY discovered by this bill, of those who have for those who have less. I can’t find that anything but selfishly motivated.
“OW! Look! YOU’RE bleeding!”
Chas
Posted June 27, 2009 at 11:24 am | Permalink
Why is it wrong to vote FOR a bill not fully read, but OK to vote AGAINST a bill not fully read??
==================================
Are you stupid or something?
Have you read the bill, BlueJay?
Do you even know what is in the bill other than it’s name, BlueJay?
I dunno Chas,
Knowing what you are voting for would seem to me to be important.
Ummm did Todd boy read the bill?? or Moran?? Yet, the complaint is that those who voted FOR the bill hadnt even read it…
If you listen to Boehner, nobody read it!!
So, it must be therefore, ok to vote against a bill you havent read, but not ok to vote for a bill you havent read…
I hope it ALL comes out before the Senate votes… just to show how WRONG and LYING the opposition really is… Thats my hope…
WTG House!! Change we can believe in!!!
For now? I know cons don’t like it.
And that is good enough for me.
Maybe this new found worry for the poor will be something that grows on them from wearing the outfit.
I think supporting something that you know nothing about is ignorant.
Maybe that’s just me.
BlueJay
Posted June 27, 2009 at 11:39 am | Permalink
For now? I know cons don’t like it.
And that is good enough for me.
=================================
So, ignorance is all BlueJay has to stand on.
Surprise, surprise.
For all Bluejay knows the bill could include slaughtering all dogs to save the environment.
Damn LIBs are gullible.
“I think supporting something that you know nothing about is ignorant.
Maybe that’s just me.”
No, lots of us felt that way about the “Patriot Act”.
But the wind was at your back then. What went around has come back around.
Overly complicated and verbose legalese that is not read let alone understood by the vast majority of the population is how we roll in this country. Do I wish it were different? Sure.
When it’s YOUR turn again.
Chas
Posted June 27, 2009 at 11:39 am | Permalink
========================
Has anyone read it?
Why vote on the damn thing if you don’t know what you are voting for?
Have you read the bill, BlueJay?
Do you even know what is in the bill other than it’s name, BlueJay?
Do you even know what you are supporting, Bluejay?
#
ANTI
Posted June 27, 2009 at 11:35 am | Permalink
Chas
Posted June 27, 2009 at 11:24 am | Permalink
Why is it wrong to vote FOR a bill not fully read, but OK to vote AGAINST a bill not fully read??
==================================
Are you stupid or something?
———————-
lmao!
(shakes head)
NTI posted June 27, 2009 at 11:40 am
I think supporting something that you know nothing about is ignorant.
——————
Denying AGW, when you know nothing about climate science, is ignorant.
Cosmos, denying that most of the freaking WORLD has realized your fraud, is ignorant.
I know this too.
I heard some con from the House floor talking to radio shill Sean Hannity live on the air as the vote passed.
He was CLEARLY distressed.
“Well, they’ve done it. They got their wish.”
I enjoyed the pain in his voice. It felt like good things happening.
Have you read the bill, BlueJay?
Do you even know what is in the bill other than it’s name, BlueJay?
Do you even know what you are supporting, Bluejay?
P.S. No answer from BlueJay yet.
Our Blue Jay May be covered in wool and have cloven feet…
Spare me.
We ha aaa aaaa dto haaa aaa aaaave the Paaa aaa aatriot Aa aaa aaact to fight the baa aaa aaaa d guys!
Clear evidence in the 12:07 post that BlueJay has been sheepled.
BlueJay is still ignorant of the bill he supports.
surprise, surprise
Sheep and their feed.
ANTI,
Your believing what Sen. Inhofe (R-Oil) and similar ilk tell you to believe is very ignorant.
Have you read the bill, Cosmos
Do you even know what is in the bill other than it’s name, Cosmos?
Do you even know what you are supporting, Cosmos?
Reg/Anti – to further your point regarding knowing what you’re voting for…can anyone verify whether or not this garbage was left in the bill that passed…or the 300+ pgs added at 4am?
Legal Options for Those “Harmed” by Global Warming.
According to the Times, the bill opens up a direct legal action option for individuals who feel they have been harmed in some way by Global Warming. I located the passage they are talking about in the bill, and the Times seems to have it about right: here’s a line or two from the SEC. 336. ENFORCEMENT bit of the bill.
The persons authorized by subsection (a) to commence an action under this section shall include any person who has suffered, or reasonably expects to suffer, a harm attributable, in whole or in part, to a violation or failure to act referred to in subsection (a).
What is harm, you ask? Well as near as I can tease out, it’s a wide open definition: “any effect of air pollution (including climate change), currently occurring or at risk of occurring.” Well, I’m an asthmatic, and it’s been getting worse my whole life. Does this mean I now have someone to blame!?
Seriously though, class action legislation is a wild little way to get the people’s attention on this issue. Money talks, right? It also appears (I’m not a lawyer here, but the Washington Times agrees with me) that the bill also allows people to sue private companies under this provision, a sort of legal umbrella for targeting big polluters. Those companies found guilty by a judge would line themselves up for having to purchase more and more Carbon Offsets (once the Obama administration decides exactly what that is).
Reactions, obviously, have been mixed.
“Perhaps a more accurate title of the bill would be ‘The Lawyer Full-Employment and As-Seen-on-TV Global Warming Act of 2009,’ ” said Larry Neal, deputy Republican staff director for the House committee.
From the left, the spin is different:
Democratic staffers said the measure provides guidance to the courts on how to apply existing Clean Air Act provisions. Private citizens can sue the government based on harm caused by pollutants currently regulated under the Clean Air Act – including nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxide – but they lack standing to sue for damages resulting from climate change.
“Nathaniel” gives us –
“…if you do not fully understand something you vote no until you get a chance.”
If you do not fully understand what you’re voting on you’re not doing your job as an elected official.
http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/04/09/waxman-markey-litigation-shell-game/
“Over the next few days, EPW PolicyBeat will focus on the Waxman-Markey draft climate change legislation and several of the most interesting provisions therein. In our view, Section 336 is far and away the most interesting in the 648-page bill. Here the authors amend the citizen suit provision in Section 304 of the Clean Air Act. The Waxman-Markey bill authorizes a “person” to “commence an action” who has “suffered, or reasonably expects to suffer, a harm attributable, in whole or in part, to a violation or failure to act referred to in subsection (a).” Sounds innocuous enough…until one reads on. For then one discovers how “harm” is defined: “For purposes of this section, the term ‘harm’ includes any effect of air pollution (including climate change), currently occurring or at risk of occurring, and the incremental exacerbation of any such effect or risk that is associated with a small incremental emission of any air pollutant (including any greenhouse gas defined in Title VII), whether or not the risk is widely shared.” In other words, should the unfortunate happen and Waxman-Markey become law, courts could conceivably be flooded with lawsuits filed by environmental groups who perceive some risk—and they undoubtedly will perceive it—that is “associated with a small incremental emission” of a greenhouse gas—whether from a coal-fired power plant, a manufacturing facility, or some other entity covered by the bill. This provision will further empower the eco-trial bar to fight the ravages of climate change and the businesses it dislikes, with no effect on the former and disastrous consequences for the latter.”
MonkeyHawk,
When 300 pages are added to a bill at 3am and a vote is forced the following day, just how exactly is it not doing your job by not having a chance to fully understand what is being voted on?
Here’s Transparency in Gov’t For You:
3, that’s right THREE whopping hours of “debate” was allowed. Also, The Dems changed the rules to waive all points of order AGAINST the bill. (In other words, just STFU if you oppose the Bill.)
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r111:3:./temp/~r1117jCI58::
Committee on Rules: Granted, by a record vote of 7 to 3, a structured rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2454, the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.” The rule provides for three hours of debate with two and one half hours to be equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and 30 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI.
MH – maybe you could explain how the GOP gets to decide what & when a bill is voted on in the House to clarify your point about not doing your job when voting on something you haven’t read/don’t fully understand.
Maybe you could explain as well whether or not the specific references I posted are still in the bill..or not…and whether voting “no” because you don’t know, means that the bill can never be voted on again? Voting yes has consequences whether good or bad, voting no at worst defers them, it doesn’t eliminate them…not like it’s a criminal trial and a not guilty verdict restricts them from trying the same crime again due to double jeopardy.
EPA Weighs Farting Cow Tax
EPA Proposing Tax On Farting Livestock
POSTED: 4:39 pm EDT June 11, 2009
UPDATED: 5:33 pm EDT June 12, 2009
MORGAN COUNTY, Ga. — Imagine being taxed on the amount of gas that you pass.
The Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t want to tax you, but it does want to levy a tax on the amount of gas livestock produce.
Carol Williams and her husband Everett have about 1,200 cows at their Morgan County farm.
Those cows pass a lot of gas.
“I think there’s been some studies done. Don’t remember the figures. said Everett Williams.
I mean some of these girls are pretty good size girls,” Carol Williams.
The methane gas released by livestock affects the atmosphere.
The EPA’s idea is to tax each dairy cow $175 a year and each beef cow $80 for the pleasure.
The cows won’t pay, but the Williams will.
“About $150,000 a year. Basically it would put me out of business,” said Everett Williams.
—————-
It is my understanding that this tax was in the original bill but was removed to get dems from the midwest to support the bill.
Who knows what will be in the senate bill.
How many dems agree with this tax?
http://www.cbsatlanta.com/news/19727599/detail.html
ANTI posted June 27, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Have you read the bill, Cosmos
Do you even know what is in the bill other than it’s name, Cosmos?
Do you even know what you are supporting, Cosmos?
————————
ANTI makes a desperate attempt to switch from science to policy.
I don’t really support the bill ANTI. I’d rather see a stronger bill, but that may be impossible, considering the power of the fossil-fuel and AGW science denier groups.
Here is part of the CBO estimate showing the Direct Redistribution of Wealth where the poor can heat their homes to 80, and cool to 70 cause they get subsidies:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10376/hr2998WaxmanLtr.pdf
Low-Income Energy Rebates By Year in BILLIONS $$$
2010 $0
2011 $0
2012 $7.4
2013 $10.2
2014 $11.9
2015 $12.8
2016 $14.6
2017 $15.5
2018 $16.6
2019 $17.9
2020 $29.4
Ahhh, Obama Socialism! Gotta Love it Libs!
YOU can sit back in comfort knowing YOUR utility bills will be subsidized by the evil Rich People!
This is a Triple Whammy for y’all Deadbeats:
1. YOU have to do nothing to save the world from Global Warming.
2. YOU get to watch the Rich be punished by paying more taxes to save the world from Global Warming.
3. YOU get another handout from Gov’t, who stole the $$ from the Rich!
“The legislation itself is enormous. It’s more than a thousand pages long, filled with obscure provisions that will keep an army of lobbyists employed for years. It’s been resoundingly panned both by groups on the left, such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, who see it as an enormous corporate giveaway, and by Republicans, who accuse it of being a massive tax that will hobble the U.S. economy.”
If this is such a great piece of legislation why are Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth against it?
They just might have read the bill. Novel concept there.
“okobserver” worries about –
“… being taxed on the amount of gas that you pass.”
Okay.
Now it’s personal for you.
Uhm…
Except…
“…this tax was in the original bill but was removed….”
Chicken Little was an optimist compared to you CONs.
Monkey there are no bovines in my family. I don’t know much about your family tree so can’t say with certainly that your mom isn’t a cow. But methane gas taxation is something the dims came up with to punish the dairy and beef farmers.
Nothing of substance to add as usual.
“okobserver” –
Your cut-and post began –
“Imagine being taxed on the amount of gas that you pass.”
I’ll stipulate for the record I don’t think you are a bovine-American.
But that little lead, about “…being taxed on the amount of gas that you pass” sounded like it prompted some personal angst on your part.
But that fart tax proposal seemed to get you riled up.
Chas…obviously you are missing some simple logic here. It is WRONG to pass legislation and enact LAWS that nobody even knows what will develop from it. As I posted earlier, I have seen many bills fail in committee because there was not enough known about it. Preventing something unknown from becomming law is far less harmful than blindly passing something nobody has read.
What is the rush? Could it be that bho realizes his ratings are dropping like a stone and he will not be able to ram things like this thru in another month or 2? Could that be the rush?
Or, what are they hiding? What is wrong with open debate and discovery? Why are they pushing this monumental legislation that NOBODY has even read thru? Could it be banning personal ownership of cars? Yes..it could…nobody knows.
So, Chas…show me the benefit of RUSHING to pass something that nobody understands vs. voting against passing it as it stands today. You can’t. the system failed us because bho pushed it thru–in a huge hurry to prevent scrutiny. Why? Why are they afraid of full disclosure??????
This is terrifying to put it simply.
Neither BlueJay, Chas, Monkeyhawk, or Cosmos can state WHY they would vote for this bill and justify it.
Funny why they would vote for something the haven’t read…
Dumb LIBs.
or they
(sorry, new keyboard.)
Anti–
I believe the answer to your above statement of why certain people would support this legislation without ever knowing what is contained is that bho said to support it…and they are blindly following their savior. No independent thought or original research whatsoever….just following like the sheeple they are.
ANTI,
Do you have a reading impairment? I never said that I’d vote for the bill.
The Sky is Falling, Again!
cosmos is splitting hairs…correct, cosmos claims no support for the existing bill….as quoted from above:
“I don’t really support the bill ANTI. I’d rather see a stronger bill”
no reading impairment there, cosmos…you obviously support the intent of the bill, but have you read it? Do you KNOW what it contains????
Nathaniel
Posted June 27, 2009 at 12:42 pm | Permalink
MonkeyHawk,
When 300 pages are added to a bill at 3am and a vote is forced the following day, just how exactly is it not doing your job by not having a chance to fully understand what is being voted on?
==============================================
Nathan, Why do you think House and Senate members have staff and advisors??? Reading bills, and making recommendations are what they get paid for… A small sstaff of even four persons could read through a 300 page addition in no time at all… Do you really think representatives and senators actually READ all the legislation that is presented?? If you do, you are terribly naive!! Sorry bout that!!
care to back up that fairy tale there, Chas? Do you have ANY proof at all that the staff sat down at 3AM, read the entire bill and all possible implications of it and then reported it out before the session was called to order?
Quite the imagination you have. Care to back it up with any FACTS at all? ANY? Talk about naive…
Chas/Cosmos – since none of the others will answer direct questions about what’s in the bill…why don’t either one of you, or both of you answer the questions above about whether or not language is still in the bill allowing lawsuits for perceived global warming damages past or future, or either one of JJ’s postings regarding changing the debate rules & subsidies. Does this legislation exempt unions as well? How many degrees/sq miles of new sea ice/feet of ocean won’t rise/droughts will be alleviated/hurricanes will be squashed due to this legislation? What’s the exit strategy, since BHO was so big on those during the campaign, when China/Russia/India/etc don’t do anything like this and global emissions increase? Thought you guys whined about not having enough industry over hear and exporting jobs…what industries are exempted? The original draft in April was 684 pgs…what changed between 684 pgs & over 1,300? Since staffers are apparently the only ones that read bills…why don’t they vote instead of elected officials?
Well, at least Fancy Pelosi got to keep her promise to pass it before July 4th…I mean shoot, I can’t think of anything more important whatsoever than making sure she can claim to have kept a promise…once.
DFB,
Why don’t you read the bill yourself?
American_Way posted June 26, 2009 at 10:03 pm
True or false?
“Over 650 dissenting scientists . . .
————————–
Laughably false.
Google — inhofe 650
Also ‘inhofe 400′ and ‘inhofe 700′.
Cosmos – brilliant! I think your boy promised that bills would be available on-line for people to read and ask questions….ooops. But nice diversion, as usual, but I’ll go ahead and give you your next couple answers to save you the typing…IPCC Report! AGW Denier!! Science!!
All I’ve suggested is maybe instead of cheering in the streets that “you won” on this bill, maybe it would be good if our dear elected officials actually read bills and debated them like adults instead of playing games to please your ilk. Not one of you has answered legitimate questions, no instead you guys spend post after post trying to make some lame point about how voting “no” while not reading it is somehow as bad as voting “yes” and not reading it. You’re a one-issue pony and this bill’s the culmination of it…surely you know what’s in the bill and could answer even a couple of the questions, no?
Overly complicated and verbose legalese that is not read let alone understood by the vast majority of the population is how we roll in this country. Do I wish it were different? Sure.
When it’s YOUR turn again.
okobserver
Posted June 27, 2009 at 12:50 pm | Permalink
EPA Weighs Farting Cow Tax
* * * * *
It’s difficult to not feel embarassed for this poor woman. An alleged grandmother, no less.
#
StevenEDavis
Posted June 27, 2009 at 6:58 pm | Permalink
okobserver
Posted June 27, 2009 at 12:50 pm | Permalink
EPA Weighs Farting Cow Tax
* * * * *
It’s difficult to not feel embarassed for this poor woman. An alleged grandmother, no less.
=============================
Actually, it’s not a stretch.
With land use, agriculture and herd taxes, the EPA will assess and demoralize the farmer either out of business and/or making prices so high, there will be a recognizable revolt against the simple minded ‘greenies’ who try to legislate nature.
The economic and livelihood disaster will make Katrina, 911 and the house meltdown look like child’s play.
Raptor wishes that Obama’s ratings looked like Bush’s.
Actually, according to the massively right-wing website RealClearPolitics, Obama’s approval rating is over 59 percent.
DFB,
A bill to reduce human-added GHG’s will be passed, if not this year, then within the next few years.
#
CapnAmerica
Posted June 27, 2009 at 7:27 pm | Permalink
Raptor wishes that Obama’s ratings looked like Bush’s.
Actually, according to the massively right-wing website RealClearPolitics, Obama’s approval rating is over 59 percent.
==================
Actually, RCP is considered a news aggregate – a gatherer of news.
Besides, RCP are ‘homies’ for O’Bama as it is HQ’d in Chicago.
Actually, according to the massively right-wing website RealClearPolitics, Obama’s approval rating is over 59 percent. – CapnA
—————-
That could not be more meaningless. But if you want to play that game, Obama’s approval rating will never come close to Bush’s 85% at 9 months in.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html
“outlander” gives us –
“Obama’s approval rating will never come close to Bush’s 85% at 9 months in.”
What possibly could Shrub have done to screw up those kind of favorable numbers?
Outlander, are you claiming to be a fortune teller, or soothsayer?? Or is your prediction the result of witchcraft??
See, Obama isnt even in his 6th month yet!!
Cos – legislation can be repealed as easily as it’s passed, so what’s your point?
But here’s another question for you and JJ already did the research for you.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10376/hr2998WaxmanLtr.pdf
Why don’t you show me where on this CBO “analysis” of the costs of the bill exactly where it takes any hickeys for a reduction in federal/state excise taxes (roughly $50/gal on all gasoline/diesel) collected for reducing the amount of fuel consumed, let alone the drop in revenues from fossil fuels used to generate electricity (excise/severance/income taxes) vs PAYING alt forms to meet the 20% mandate. But I’ll go ahead and answer it for you..they don’t.
Now, since I answered that one for you, regardless of whether it’s in the bill or not, it was in the original draft…so why don’t you simply explain the logic of allowing people/entities/foreign countries to sue the US govt/companies for perceived global warming damages past, present or future, based on activities that have always been legal? I don’t see a line item for that gem in the cost analysis either…doesn’t mean it’s not in the bill, as I’ve already proven they didn’t account for all “costs”. Just’n learn me of yous hi fallutin’ scientific ways on how allowing a mass influx of frivolous lawsuits saves the world? Especially as the govt’s sued…I’m tryin’ to think…who is it that funds the govt again…wait, it’s coming to me…oh, right, taxpayers!
I’m sorry, “DFB” –
But in respect for “okobserver,” we’re discussing only “substantive” issues this evening on WE Blog.
What’s your opinion about Michelle Obama’s ass?
CapnAmerica
Posted June 27, 2009 at 7:27 pm | Permalink
Raptor wishes that Obama’s ratings looked like Bush’s
huh? What are you smoking? you have lied before, and now you are lying agin
MH – who cares, I’ll worry about it when she pulls a Billary and decides she’s a politician too.
hey capn…since you claim to be a mind reader, care to tell me what I am wishing for now?
DFB posted June 27, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Cos – legislation can be repealed as easily as it’s passed, so what’s your point?
—————-
My point was obvious. Legislation to reduce human-added GHG’s will be passed, if not this year, then within the next few years.
It will happen in the U.S and worldwide, despite your denial of AGW science.
Cosmos – can always count on you for zero substance in the face of actual questions. Worldwide huh..you mean like how Australia just turned it down? Or maybe how it’s failing miserable all over Europe? Funny, haven’t seen China/Russia/India mention a word about buying into your scam..huh weird..guess you meant something else by “worldwide”..or maybe they put it in the legislation that it must be worldwide because the House said so.
But thanks again…for nothing.
DFB posted June 27, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Worldwide huh..you mean like how Australia just turned it down?
—————-
Yes.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/embarrassing-questions/
cosmos wants to see poor people suffer when they will no long be able to afford electricity, food or energy to keep them warm.
BlueJay
Posted June 27, 2009 at 6:43 pm | Permalink
Overly complicated and verbose legalese that is not read let alone understood by the vast majority of the population is how we roll in this country. Do I wish it were different? Sure.
——————
So BJ didn’t read the Bill or understand it.
But he supports it.
Uh huh.
Say DFB, it doesn’t appear that anyone supporting this ‘energy’ Bill has bothered to read either the Bill itself, or the CBO cost estimate.
Probably can’t trust the CBO estimate though, since it comes from the Congressional Budget Office controlled by Democrats.
So again, close your eyes, and let’s go full-speed ahead.
Just like “people” like you supported the “Patriot act” there “Jim”.
Oh thanks BJ for confirming you did NOT read the Bill or the CBO cost estimiate.
As for the Patriot act diversion attempt of yours, that’s an old topic. Do a bone dig and show when I ever supported that. I didn’t.
(BJ, the Poster Boy®, since it’s a weekend, will be up posting by roughly 10 am or so. He was up posting late last night. You see, Poster Boy® lives off the village, taking everything, giving nothing back to the village. Thus he has nearly unlimited time to blog about being put down by the man, though he refuses to work for a living. Poster Boy® is in the Carp family of bottom-feeding suckers.)
Cos – hate to burst your bubble, but your lame blog article talks about Australia..doesn’t mention China, Russia, India, Africa, S America, C America, Middle East, etc, etc, etc..musta slept a little during geography huh?
JJ – wonder what happens to all these freaks setting up their business (ie, Al Gore) to rely purely on govt funding/subsidies/mandates, when if a law gets passed…it gets just as summarily repealed?
Oh Pelosi and others stand to benefit too.
But you know, there’s a lot of money to spread around.
cosmos,
Did you take Physics in college cosmos?
How about Chemistry?
Did you take a meteorology course?
Looks like you were wrong there “Jim”.
Or is it “Max”?
“As for the Patriot act diversion attempt of yours, that’s an old topic. Do a bone dig and show when I ever supported that. I didn’t.”
How WOULD I know? Musical nics and all?
#
BlueJay
Posted June 28, 2009 at 10:05 pm | Permalink
“As for the Patriot act diversion attempt of yours, that’s an old topic. Do a bone dig and show when I ever supported that. I didn’t.”
————-
But the Obama and his congressional minions do.
DFB posted June 27, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Worldwide huh..you mean like how Australia just turned it down?
—————-
Yes, definitely.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/embarrassing-questions/
Cos – I can double post too…just because you double post, doesn’t make your Australian blog any more meaningful relative to “global”….
Cos – hate to burst your bubble, but your lame blog article talks about Australia..doesn’t mention China, Russia, India, Africa, S America, C America, Middle East, etc, etc, etc..musta slept a little during geography huh?