Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: RoadKingLarry on June 26, 2009, 08:48:23 PM
-
House passes sweeping energy/climate bill.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090626/ap_on_go_co/us_climate_bill (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090626/ap_on_go_co/us_climate_bill)
House narrowly passes major energy-climate bill
WASHINGTON – In a triumph for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed sweeping legislation Friday that calls for the nation's first limits on pollution linked to global warming and aims to usher in a new era of cleaner, yet more costly energy.
The vote was 219-212, capping months of negotiations and days of intense bargaining among Democrats. Republicans were overwhelmingly against the measure, arguing it would destrjavascript:void(0);oy jobs in the midst of a recession while burdening consumers with a new tax in the form of higher energy costs.
The House's action fulfilled Speaker Nancy Pelosi's vow to clear major energy legislation before July 4, and sent the measure to a highly uncertain fate in the Senate.
Obama lobbied recalcitrant Democrats by phone from the White House as the debate unfolded across several hours, and Al Gore posted a statement on his Web site saying the measure represents "an essential first step towards solving the climate crisis." The former vice president won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work drawing attention to the destructive potential of global warming.
On the House floor, Democrats hailed the legislation as historic, while Republicans said it would damage the economy without solving the nation's energy woes. ...
I guess we can still hope that this will die in the Senate. =| =(
Still looking for a report listing how each rep voted.
I am so disgusted with my Congress critter.
-
This is not good.
-
Got a link to how each Rep voted? Not that I have any hope for my Rep.
How's it look in the Senate? Is it gonna be close?
-
Ummmm...
Anyone get the feeling that the middle-class is essentially screwed?
The rich probably won't worry to much about energy cost increases because they're rich.
The poor will get tax credits, rebats, and other assistance which will negate the increases because they're poor.
Everyone in the middle can apparently go pound sand.
Just another 3-1/2 years of this horse$#!%. Then with a little luck we can return to some form of sanity.
-
Just another 3-1/2 years of this horse$#!%. Then with a little luck we can return to some form of sanity.
Eh. Think it'd get repealed even after Obama leaves office?
-
Eh. Think it'd get repealed even after Obama leaves office?
My Magic 8 Ball says "Doubtful".
-
Eh. Think it'd get repealed even after Obama leaves office?
Defeatism is... self-defeating.
-
Defeatism is... self-defeating.
Micro, I'm a realist. I'll do everything in my power to put a stop to this nutty *expletive deleted*it, but there's only so much a few can do against the idiotic masses.
-
I'll do everything in my power to put a stop to this nutty *expletive deleted*it, but there's only so much a few can do against the idiotic masses.
Had some friends over for a cookout tonight and during conversation I mentioned calling my Rep and how I got the feeling they didn't give a damn. One friend asked why I called, I said "Because I want him to oppose cap 'n trade". 4 frikken adults sat there and gave me blank stares. "Whats that?".
I feel sad. =(
-
Defeatism is... self-defeating.
Heh. Unfortunately, it's not defeatism. It's realistic assessment.
We make progress in one area, and lose ground in a dozen others. Eventually, things get worse enough that the system resets. This is the way of things.
-
Had some friends over for a cookout tonight and during conversation I mentioned calling my Rep and how I got the feeling they didn't give a damn. One friend asked why I called, I said "Because I want him to oppose cap 'n trade". 4 frikken adults sat there and gave me blank stares. "Whats that?".
When their employers move overseas and they're out of work, explain the concept to them.
-
Heh. Unfortunately, it's not defeatism. It's realistic assessment.
We make progress in one area, and lose ground in a dozen others. Eventually, things get worse enough that the system resets.
If that were true, the reasonable way to go would be to vote for the most socialist bastard you can find. You know, so the system would "reset" faster. Of course, it isn't true.
-
If that were true, the reasonable way to go would be to vote for the most socialist bastard you can find. You know, so the system would "reset" faster. Of course, it isn't true.
It's a little more complicated than that. Whenever a system gets too complicated that is completely broke, it gets reset. But who does the resetting matters. If hardcore socialists are in power when the reset is necessary...
FYI, to all of the heroes of the interwebz, by reset I don't necessarily mean revolution. I just mean the old laws are wiped clean and something new and theoretically more streamlined replaces. Politics is an art of the possible. Anyone who is eagerly drooling over the prospect of a revolution has never seen one performed. They tend to be exceedingly bloody, and the majority of those who suffer are ordinary regular folks who don't deserve it.
-
Here are the eight RINO's who made this possible:
Mary Bono Mack (Calif.-45)
Mike Castle (Del.)
Mark Steven Kirk (Ill.-10)
Leonard Lance (N.J.-7)
Frank LoBiondo (N.J.-2)
John McHugh (N.Y.-23)
Dave Reichert (Wash.-8)
Chris Smith (N.J.-4)
I wonder what Obama bribed them with. An Obama bobblehead doll?
-
I love the word "resets." We are not talking about re-booting a computer here.
And who says it resets anyway? I think history shows that states of self-reinforcing misery have a nasty way of perpetuating themselves.
All I can is that if the late, great middle class of the American nation are really willing to put up with this they are truly addled-brained. They have the power to stop this insanity. They should do it for their children if they can't find a nobler purpose.
-
Yes, revolutions are not video games, and they are awful and bloody.
But tyrannical oppression, once fully unchained, isn't exactly a garden party either.
We don't need a revolution. We need an uncoupling.
-
It's a little more complicated than that. Whenever a system gets too complicated that is completely broke, it gets reset. But who does the resetting matters. If hardcore socialists are in power when the reset is necessary...
I'm not a believer in "we're screwed forever". History is full of examples of people, individuals and groups of them, turning things around.
-
Of course we're not screwed forever, but to change things we have to be sober and realistic and understand what we're up against. The current situation is surreal; if "history" ended in '89, then "politics" ended in '09. When you have bet-the-farm legislation being passed without even being fully read or digested by supposedly responsible representatives we have entered an era in which all prevous bets are off and dramatic action is called for. I have said elsewhere that we are going to need some form of divorce if we want to survive, and there is no reason such a divorce can't, in theory, be civil and legal and bloodless. I also believe that we have no choice but to begin working, probably through talk radio (while it still exists), on the creation of a massive civil rights movement comparable in scope to what MLK achieved four decades ago.
-
Got a link to how each Rep voted? Not that I have any hope for my Rep.
How's it look in the Senate? Is it gonna be close?
Here's the Roll Call (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll477.xml)
My Rep was probably going to vote against anyways, but I like to think my note helped, and now I gotta knock out an attaboy e-mail. I like them to know I checked how they voted.
I too am interested if anyone has a feel for the Senate's likely vote on this one.
-
This bill is great. I like the color green. Isn't that what this bill is about? Oh, 1500 pages you say? 1500 pages of what? Wait, don't tell me... extra carbon credits for special interests?
Nevermind that global pollution will increase, since any large polluting companies that can move, will move to developing countries with little-to-no environmental regulation, and will end up polluting more than they do today.
Nevermind that the millions of "green" new jobs Obama promises won't exist. If they did, they would cost on the order of 100 billion/yr in salaries alone, and those costs would naturally have to be recovered in the pricing of green domestically-produced power and products.
Nevermind that the decreased GDP and taxes resulting from the industrial exodus will render us even less able to pay our debts, resulting in more inflation. Maybe Washington will start selling military assets to friendly countries in an effort to pay the bills.
My rep voted against this abomination. Not that I agree with him on most things, but at least he had the right idea in this case. I don't know what else to say.
We make progress in one area, and lose ground in a dozen others. Eventually, things get worse enough that the system resets [through nonviolent revolution]. This is the way of things.
I have said elsewhere that we are going to need some form of divorce if we want to survive, and there is no reason such a divorce can't, in theory, be civil and legal and bloodless.
Why would a democratically elected government voluntarily step down? The existing government would paint a replacement constitution+government as a political caricature... some form of anarchy, communism, fascism. Presidential and Congressional approval ratings could drop to the single digits, and still the average American would identify the problem as that particular president or that particular congress. "If only the right person were elected, or the right congress, and $favorite_candidate is our savior!" Even if -- or more likely when -- Obama is revealed to be wearing no clothes, the majority will not view that as a failure of the political system, but rather a failure on their part to identify and elect an ideal candidate. The concept of democracy, including democratic republics as a subset, has been elevated in political thought to the point where I doubt there's enough political will to ever replace it, even if the replacement were another democracy.
How could we get a proper government, set up by people smart enough to construct a better constitutional framework, but who lack ego or desire to run the new government after its formation? How could we get the current government to transition peacefully to that new government?
-
Nevermind that the millions of "green" new jobs Obama promises won't exist.
When Spain enacted similar measures, "green" jobs were created. However, for every green job created, 2.2 other jobs were eliminated. The cost to create one green job was on the order of $1.4 million, most in the form of taxpayer-funded subsidies.
Everyone who lives in the upper midwest should call his senators on Monday and lay into them about this bill. It's states like WI, MI, PA, and others with heavy manufacturing that are going to get hit hard.
I wish the CEO's of companies such as Harley Davidson, John Deere, Briggs & Stratton and other heavy manufacturers would announce before the Senate vote that they're taking trips to China to discuss the possibilities of moving their manufacturing operations there. Let's see the union bosses try to spin that one.
This bill is national suicide, yet there's a headlong rush to pass it.
As for changing the country, we need to look at what's possible. One thing that would help would be changing the tax laws so that individuals, and not their employers, would have to pay withholding taxes each month from their pay. This wouldn't be possible under the current Democrat trifecta, but when control changes to the Republican side, it could be done.
Getting rid of the current crop of politicians won't do the trick, as our system will just replace them with more party hacks. Trying to rally the people sure doesn't seem to work, as the politicians have now stacked the deck so that nearly half the population pays no taxes and thus has no stake in the cost of legislation, except as it affects the cost of goods and services. Even then, those at the lowest economic levels will be given handouts to insulate them from the effects of legislation.
I think the only thing that will work is for the US to collapse as the Soviet Union did, and dissolve into separate country states. Our states have far more going for them than the former Soviet states, so they could be economically viable on their own. If a confederacy of such states could be formed, we could see a return to the United States as it previously existed. Inclusion into the new United States would have to be done very selectively, though.
That's not a very pleasant prospect, but it's all I can think of. The idea of a new revolution, and bringing back the guillotine, has appeal, though.
-
Well, maybe you start by showing that the situation you have doesn't conform to the criteria of a responsible, democratically-elected, Constitution-respecting form of governance. No one here deludes himself that the current situation presents facile forms of redress.
It is clear that a large number of Americans will opt for the status quo and others will just do as they are told. You start with that assumption, and that is a perfect reason to figure out some way for us to separate ourselves from them. If they want their Obamaian utopia, let them have it; the issue is what we have and want.
Anyway...
-
There's talk, among the GOP, that this can be stopped at the Senate level. We'll see.
-
There's talk, among the GOP, that this can be stopped at the Senate level. We'll see.
The Republicrats talk a lot. I didn't say they talk sensibly. I didn't say they talk effectively. I just said they talk a lot.
This bill is national suicide, yet there's a headlong rush to pass it.
Washington, D.C. doesn't want to be left behind by Sacramento.
-
"Green" and "renewable" energy doesn't work without gov't subsidies. The technology just isn't there yet. If it was a properly developed, mature, cost effective and profitable industry, then there wouldn't be any problem. Taxing conventional forms of energy to increase costs to bring them in line with "green" sources will only result in the costs being passed on to the consumer. Which will then prompt gov't to offer rebates and assitance to the poor, but not to anyone who can "afford" the costs of their blundering.
It would have been better to offer significant tax breaks to businesses to develop the "green" sources the proper way, or reduce the bureaucratic costs related to nuclear power for that energy stream. Of course, the Obamanauts don't want nuclear power either, because granola eating animal snugglers don't think anybody should be master of the atom.
-
The whole idea of taxing energy is to route more wealth through government hands, which will so-called "redistribute" it in accordance with socialist principles:
1. More government
2. More government
3. More government
while paying lip service to the self-styled "victims" of capitalism.
-
On the reruns c-span was just showing, John Larson (D-CT-1) ranted about the evils of sending dollars overseas and our addiction to oil... buying oil funds terrorism, etc. He claimed that somehow this bill will help us compete against China and India. Strangely he didn't explain how.
Every supporter of this bill said the same thing, couched in amorphous and moral rather than factual language: that passing this bill will somehow get China and India and other countries to follow suit in restricting their emissions, that this bill will create jobs, and that this bill will improve our ability to compete with China and India. Mind-boggling. China is going to be laughing all the way to the bank.
"Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. Let's vote for jobs!" -- Nancy Pelosi, 2009-06-26, on the American Clean Energy and Security Act
"Make no mistake, this [American Clean Energy and Security Act] is a jobs bill." -- President Obama, 2009-06-27, weekly address
"Above all, [the American Clean Energy and Security Act] will protect consumers from the costs of this transition, so that in a decade, the price to the average American will be just about a postage stamp a day." -- President Obama, 2009-06-27, weekly address
"[The American Clean Energy and Security Act] has also been carefully written to address the concerns that many have expressed in the past. Instead of increasing the deficit, it's paid for by the polluters who currently emit dangerous carbon emissions." -- President Obama, 2009-06-27, weekly address.
-
On the reruns c-span was just showing, John Larson (D-CT-1) ranted about the evils of sending dollars overseas and our addiction to oil... buying oil funds terrorism, etc. He claimed that somehow this bill will help us compete against China and India. Strangely he didn't explain how.
Every supporter of this bill said the same thing, couched in amorphous and moral rather than factual language: that passing this bill will somehow get China and India and other countries to follow suit in restricting their emissions, that this bill will create jobs, and that this bill will improve our ability to compete with China and India. Mind-boggling. China is going to be laughing all the way to the bank.
"Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. Let's vote for jobs!" -- Nancy Pelosi, 2009-06-26, on the American Clean Energy and Security Act
"Make no mistake, this [American Clean Energy and Security Act] is a jobs bill." -- President Obama, 2009-06-27, weekly address
"Above all, [the American Clean Energy and Security Act] will protect consumers from the costs of this transition, so that in a decade, the price to the average American will be just about a postage stamp a day." -- President Obama, 2009-06-27, weekly address
"[The American Clean Energy and Security Act] has also been carefully written to address the concerns that many have expressed in the past. Instead of increasing the deficit, it's paid for by the polluters who currently emit dangerous carbon emissions." -- President Obama, 2009-06-27, weekly address.
Hmmm... they claim the cost will be "only" a postage stamp a day.
First of all, I'll note they make that claim about 10 years hence. That way they will no longer be around to suffer the consequences. This also means the immediate cost will be MUCH higher, but they won't talk about that.
(Aside: as an economist, this is what is scaring me: they are passing laws that will have no results but to damage an economy ALREADY in recession.... HOW STUPID ARE THESE PEOPLE)
Secondly, a "postage stamp a day" comes out to about $165 per year.
That's not minuscule, and will be a burden ESPECIALLY on families just starting out. This is their estimated cost in ten years. How much do they plan on bleeding new families right now?
-
Best CBO numbers placed the cost in the realm of $1000-$2000 per avg taxpayer per year.
Other less rosy estimates exceed $5000/year/taxpayer.
-
This bill is national suicide, yet there's a headlong rush to pass it.
IMHO it's because the concerns who are selling the imaginary product (carbon credits) are going to have a very large and dependable cash flow, which they're no doubt going to share with their friends in the Congress.
What angers me most is not that our politicians are crooks who'd sell their own daughters for a buck, but that the alleged "reporters" in our so-called "news media" are, by and large, willing, informed, accomplices to this <expletive.>
NYTimes, LATimes, ABCNBCCBSCNNMSNBT etc. have become nothing more than the propaganda wing of the extreme left in the Democratic Party.
Best CBO numbers placed the cost in the realm of $1000-$2000 per avg taxpayer per year.
Other less rosy estimates exceed $5000/year/taxpayer.
And they don't include the massive hit to GDP . . .
-
That will be the most expensive postage stamp in history--in the new KenyAmero currency.
-
This is a time of magical, infantile "thinking."
We have many people, in the mass and in the elite both, who think that legislation creates reality (a green future with oodles of new jobs, by imperial fiat) and that government is somehow behind all wealth and progress. They haven't a clue how America got to be the most powerful nation in history, and, worse, they have no respect for liberty.
In my view it is way past time to believe we can educate them.
-
This is a time of magical, infantile "thinking."
That is a huge insult to infants.
-
He claimed that somehow this bill will help us compete against China and India. Strangely he didn't explain how.
Because products from American companies like Harley, Briggs and others I mentioned will be made in China and India, so the companies will be able to sell them for less, thus making them competitive on the world market.
I've been reluctant to say it in public, and will probably be punished for doing so, but I think some of our legiscritters should be captured and made examples of what can happen when legislators sell out their country.
-
Because products from American companies like Harley, Briggs and others I mentioned will be made in China and India, so the companies will be able to sell them for less, thus making them competitive on the world market.
I've been reluctant to say it in public, and will probably be punished for doing so, but I think some of our legiscritters should be captured and made examples of what can happen when legislators sell out their country.
That's probably his idea, however it doesn't do a thing for the average American.
-
I've been reluctant to say it in public, and will probably be punished for doing so, but I think some of our legiscritters should be captured and made examples of what can happen when legislators sell out their country.
I believe the problem is we've given them plenty of examples as to what happens when legislators sell out their country. Reelection doesn't seem to scare them. I think what we need to do is add some new consequences.
-
What I find fascinating about the discussion here and on other correctly thinking boards is the incomplete thinking about what is happening to us. I can find beau coup d'electrons on the evils of what our government is doing yet I can find nothing, absolutely nothing, about rolling back what the bad guys are doing. If the provisions being enacted are so unconstitutional, so unlawful, so morally unacceptable why is there no discussion of rolling back the initiatives.
Why do we accept as permanent a political ratchet that moves only toward the left. Democrats honk down on the handle hard and fast. Joe and Martha Sixpack rebel and rock'em back on their heels by throwing in with republicans. The result? Nothing! No movement to reset the ratchet and back off the statism implemented by democrats. We are told the party assuming power wants to focus on the future and not the past. Well if what the incumbent party did so so wrong, onerous, illegal, unconstitutional, and fattening, then we are morally obligated to undo it. Not defund it, not fail to enforce, not ignore it; repeal it. What we do see is evident agreement with the goals and objectives of the other party. Republicans are supposedly the party of business and free market capitalism and all that tommyrot. What I see is nothing of the sort. What I see is statists accepting what statists in the other party do. There is no interest in jihading our way through the law code and removing everything constituting a threat to life, liberty, and property. In short, the flame of liberty burns low. I hope it does not go out.
-
Oil execs are stating that under this green energy regime, their plan will be to abandon (polluting) refineries and simply import gas and fuel from abroad. Three cheers for more dependence on foreign oil!
here we go: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a1ZiIqv3E4QE
-
Waitone, there's a couple of reasons why these provisions probably, but not positively, will not be rolled back. The first is that Republicans don't have spines. Second is that the Democrats will find a way to make a large segment of the public dependent upon the cap and trade bill, so that they can cry "boogeyman" if Republicans even mention touching the law.
History has shown that, once a tax has been enacted, it's near impossible to repeal. Taxes have been reduced, not largely not repealed. Isn't there still a tax on phone bills for the Spanish American war? I know there's still a tax for Clinton's 1996 campaign maneuver to get votes in California by giving the state's schools internet access.
-
Spanish American War and it was repealed a year or so ago.
Extraordinary events demand extraordinary thinking. My problem is I see no thinking much less evidence of extraordinary thinking on the part of the loyal opposition.
-
I've been reluctant to say it in public, and will probably be punished for doing so, but I think some of our legiscritters should be captured and made examples of what can happen when legislators sell out their country.
I'm thinking along the lines of a scene from the miniseries "John Adams" where a British port official was being excessively - shall we say - "Officious."
A cry was raised . . . "TAR HIM! TAR HIM!"
The Colonists did. =D
-
A cry was raised . . . "TAR HIM! TAR HIM!"
I was thinking more along the lines of the Nuremburg trials.
-
The problem is that in a democratic republic the poli-critters represent the wishes of their constituents. After enough years of indoctrination in our "schools" I honestly think we have more people who want to see America turn into a socialist European country than who want it to stay unique.
-
I'm sick and tired of hearing about the 2 million or 3 million or 3.5 million or some other fictitious number of jobs that will be "saved or created" by a green energy economy. If it's true then I want someone to detail job titles....what job is being created? For example: Methane scrubber, Carbon Compliance Community Chairman (scary), Turbine Blade Wiper 2, Compost Wrangler, Geothermal Dousing Witch, Small Engine Usage Snitch, Roof and Driveway Painter...what? The reason nobody can say is that any meaningful jobs are years if not decades (if ever) downstream.
Oh wait, I know. Obama is going to hire 100,000 people to build wind turbines then hire 3.4 million at minimum wage to stand in front of them and blow as hard as they can. Can you see the reaction to getting that job? "But when you said this job really blows, I thought you meant...."
-
http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/index.html (http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/index.html)
Reps by State.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll477.xml (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll477.xml)
Roll Call Vote on Cap and Trade.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.ning.com%2Ffiles%2FWsHOV3rdA4ZPdNxMWc9JiOwzMQfOa3--kXQXeQoV-37PhAvkzCgsiN9Ji8uCnZEuhkTQFa1MynIXfdysHUMh4lHXMqDFcAxi%2FImage2.jpg&hash=2b87d3765536125dd37aa86172de1abd80f671e7)
-
Roll-backs are not impossible. But it will take a psychological sea-change. And make no mistake, the seas will be roiling.
-
I'm curious to see where they plan on taking all of this.
-
We knew this was going to pass in the House, so no surprise there. The real battle was always going to be in the Senate. We'll have to see how that one shakes out.
Heck, the fact that it only barely passed in the House is quite encouraging. It was supposed to pass easily, but apparently Obama had to pull out all the stops just to get it through.
-
There is one word to describe what their side is doing: travesty.
And there is one word to describe what our side is doing about it: nothing.
The political realm has become surreal, but too many on our side continue to act as if it's still business as usual. This is not just the result of the current political polemics, it's the result of deep changes in the American culture over the last forty years. We are living in Ted Kennedy's America, and that prospect should scare the bejesus out of all of us. If we think we are going to get out of this by winning a few local elections and staging a few tea parties we are kidding ourselves, that's all I can say.
***
I will be waiting to see what happens with SCOTUS's ruling on the Ricci case. That will tell me how much of the country I grew up in is still left.
-
There is one word to describe what their side is doing: travesty.
And there is one word to describe what our side is doing about it: nothing.
QFT
-
I'm just pleased that my democrat representative voted no. I had already decided if he voted yes, he would not get my vote in the next election. He earned my vote in the last election by voting against TARP and all the stimulus crap.
So far, he's more conservative than the republican representatives from my state.
Hopefully this will die in the senate.
-
I was thinking more along the lines of the Nuremburg trials and the subsequent hangings.
No reason they can't be tarred before hanging.
-
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Don't forget to email, call or fax your senator's office and voice your opposition to cap and trade.
I don't have the senate bill number in front of me, if someone knows it plese post it.
Edit:
There will be no further talk of hanging anyone in this thread.
-
It's H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.
I emailed both my senators, Kohl and Feingold. It's worth 20 minutes of your day to compose a concise, literate email voicing your opposition to the bill and bear part of your responsibility as citizen to influence the political process.
-
I called Kohl and Feingold's Washington offices. The staffers didn't take my name and address, which is usually a sign that either the staffer or the legislator has his mind made up and the public can pound sand.
-
I can already tell you how Kohl and Feingold are going to vote on this one:
The Dairy Queen will vote for it.
Feingold will vote against it only if there are plenty enough votes to pass it.