Cap and Trade

[GTaudiophile]

Is it true what I am hearing that an amendment was slipped in at the last minute, requiring special government inspection of one's home before it can be put on the market for sale?

Sounds like bigger, more inefficient government to me.

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Is it true what I am hearing that an amendment was slipped in at the last minute, requiring special government inspection of one's home before it can be put on the market for sale?

Sounds like bigger, more inefficient government to me.

I have heard the same thing. This bill if it passes will be a complete disaster. It will be a huge burden on the American people to fund a huge increase in government. I just hope this is killed dead in the Senate.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
The really important thing to think of whether you believe the science or not is exactly how this affects our economy. What it does is make domestically produced goods much more expensive such that we will now be giving a HUGE advantage to foreign manufacturers. This will result in pretty much the last gasp of industry in this country such that EVERYTHING we use will have to be imported from other countries.

i saw a couple bits about an amendment that would put automatic tariffs of 85% on products imported from countries that aren't taking carbon-limiting steps that appease congress. not sure if it made the final bill.


if carbon taxes are added to the transport of goods it'll be a huge protective measure.

 

[Liberator21]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: sandorski
In a few years none of you will even care about this. In fact, amongst those still caring, many will have changed their minds from Opposition to Support. You're all acting like this is some new Scheme Al Gore cooked up in some Gas Guzzling SUV. It was done before(Bush Sr as President) and was a great success then.

Dumb, and a lie. This has not been done before, and it's an incredibly harmful thing to the economy based on junk and unproven science, by anti Americans who dont even have the balls to confront skeptics of their junk science.

Incorrect

You are correct, sir. :thumbsup:


I thought everyone knew this.

"This is similar to the cap and trade program enacted by the Clean Air Act of 1990, which reduced the sulfur emissions that cause acid rain, and it met the goals at a much lower cost than industry or government predicted."

Unfortunately, sulfur IS a toxic waste byproduct. This whole Carbon ordeal is based around the misnomer that carbon is somehow a carcinogen, when in fact, it is not.

Trees produce it, humans EXHALE it - there's no way in hell we should be taxed because of something we're producing in our own bodies. Utterly ridiculous and fool hardy. I thought everyone knew this...

 

[Liberator21]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Aquila76

Originally posted by: BrownTown
The really important thing to think of whether you believe the science or not is exactly how this affects our economy. What it does is make domestically produced goods much more expensive such that we will now be giving a HUGE advantage to foreign manufacturers. This will result in pretty much the last gasp of industry in this country such that EVERYTHING we use will have to be imported from other countries.

Yup. With GM & Chrysler all but gone and Ford leasing their buildings from other companies, there will soon be no more manufacturing in the US. Startup companies won't want to build anything here due to the excessive government taxation (and just wait until mandatory healthcare hits nationwide; it's going great here in MA!). As soon as the other countries realize we are critically dependent on them for survival, we are screwed.

Incorrect. As stated earlier, Manufacturing has been leaving for many reasons not related to this at all, specifically Wages.

Incorrect again. Manufacturing has been leaving because business can pay less wages over seas, but the primary reason is corporate taxing. The U.S. is second highest in governmental taxing of corporations, only behind Japan.

It's no secret that if the U.S. wants its jobs back keep what we have, plus encourage potentially millions of new start ups, the reasonable answer is to decrease the corporate income tax.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: quest55720
This bill if it passes will be a complete disaster.

It will be a huge burden on the American people to fund a huge increase in government.

I just hope this is killed dead in the Senate.

The bigger the burden the better

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: quest55720
This bill if it passes will be a complete disaster.

It will be a huge burden on the American people to fund a huge increase in government.

I just hope this is killed dead in the Senate.

The bigger the burden the better

Tax the poor, eh DuhMcOwned?

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
A lot of the Obama legislation is pushed down our throats without ample time to study the effects. Whenever someone says we must do something fast or because of fear, thats the time to worry.

Happened under Bush, too. We cannot allow Congress to continue acting this way.

What we desperately need (and will never get) is an inviolable rule that when legislation of this magnitude is coming a vote that all members of Congress have the completed legislation in their hands a week before.

Like I said, never happen. People would then have a chance to examine important laws that will impact their lives, and we can't have that. Party First.

True

I think the people who wrote the original voting rules for Congress wrongly believed that future Congresspersons would actually have some honor.

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: tk149

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
A lot of the Obama legislation is pushed down our throats without ample time to study the effects. Whenever someone says we must do something fast or because of fear, thats the time to worry.

Happened under Bush, too. We cannot allow Congress to continue acting this way.

What we desperately need (and will never get) is an inviolable rule that when legislation of this magnitude is coming a vote that all members of Congress have the completed legislation in their hands a week before.

Like I said, never happen. People would then have a chance to examine important laws that will impact their lives, and we can't have that. Party First.

True

I think the people who wrote the original voting rules for Congress wrongly believed that future Congresspersons would actually have some honor.

wonder if all of those who voted on this bill have now read all 1200 pages? somehow I doubt it...

didn't 300 pages of it get added while the vote was in progress?

 

[cubby1223]

Much about this bill is more of the same porky earmarks. Like Ohio representative Marcy Kaptur who was undecided, especially because of the economic effects this would have on the coal industry in her own state - to get her vote the Dems earmarked $3.5 billion to her to hand out as she sees fit...

 

[paperfist]

Originally posted by: Drako
I just can't believe that this is going to pass through Congress.

You'd think that the politicians would understand how this is going to fuck over most of their constituents. Damn common sense to hell!

I just can't believe we have to sit idly by while this takes place! The American people really have a huge tolerance for getting porked.

I hope before I died we get to replace these clowns with internet voting for the people by the people

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Marinski
what the hell is a carbon credit anyways??

Or I can own a forest. I can say I am going to cut down the forest. I can then offer me not cutting down the forest for a payment. I can make money off a polluting company by not cutting down trees I never intended to cut down.

 

[GeezerMan]

LINK

Here is a rundown of the power given to the Feds to do an energy audit of private homes and assess fines if needed.

"The bill states every home owner will receive an energy audit. What is a home energy audit? It is an intrusive visit made by the bureaucrats at the Home Energy Team or a similar group. They will examine and report the way you live your life directly to RESNET (Residential Energy Services Network) . Light fixtures, socket types, spas, hot tubs, windows, appliances, walls and roofs will all be under review. Energy tests will be conducted throughout your house. At the end of the visit you will receive a report and a rating. The report will focus on the changes you need to make and the rating is called a HERS rating (Home Energy Rating System). RESNET will perform the audits through authorized contractors. RESNET has adopted the Mortgage Industry National Home Energy Rating Standards. The standards set the national procedures for home energy ratings. "

 

[glugglug]

Will this affect our electric bills in NYC? We were already had the highest rates in the U.S (maybe the world?) before they increased it by 30% each year the past 2 years in a row.

The official rate on the bill when you add the supply charge, delivery charge, and taxes based on the KWh usage they claim is about $0.29/KWh. But since the amount of usage claimed by CON Ed is at least 3x your real usage, the real rate we are being robbed here is around $1/KWh

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: GeezerMan
LINK

Here is a rundown of the power given to the Feds to do an energy audit of private homes and assess fines if needed.

"The bill states every home owner will receive an energy audit. What is a home energy audit? It is an intrusive visit made by the bureaucrats at the Home Energy Team or a similar group. They will examine and report the way you live your life directly to RESNET (Residential Energy Services Network) . Light fixtures, socket types, spas, hot tubs, windows, appliances, walls and roofs will all be under review. Energy tests will be conducted throughout your house. At the end of the visit you will receive a report and a rating. The report will focus on the changes you need to make and the rating is called a HERS rating (Home Energy Rating System). RESNET will perform the audits through authorized contractors. RESNET has adopted the Mortgage Industry National Home Energy Rating Standards. The standards set the national procedures for home energy ratings. "

I can tell you right now that where I live there are alot of rednecks and TBH its likely someone would get shit if they tried to do this. I at least would tell them to go fuck themselves if they tried. Even though I am quite energy efficient I would rather pay a fine than have the G-man trying to control every aspect of my life.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: quest55720
This bill if it passes will be a complete disaster.

It will be a huge burden on the American people to fund a huge increase in government.

I just hope this is killed dead in the Senate.

The bigger the burden the better

Tax the poor, eh DuhMcOwned?

What poor? Richest country in the world right and getting richer every day.

 

[jpeyton]

Glad to see some measures are being taken to seriously combat climate change.

The Dems are getting the job done.

 

[SunSamurai]

Yes, because we can do a damn thing about climate change just as much as we can alter the axis of Earths spin. What a bunch of BS.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: Liberator21

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Aquila76

Originally posted by: BrownTown
The really important thing to think of whether you believe the science or not is exactly how this affects our economy. What it does is make domestically produced goods much more expensive such that we will now be giving a HUGE advantage to foreign manufacturers. This will result in pretty much the last gasp of industry in this country such that EVERYTHING we use will have to be imported from other countries.

Yup. With GM & Chrysler all but gone and Ford leasing their buildings from other companies, there will soon be no more manufacturing in the US. Startup companies won't want to build anything here due to the excessive government taxation (and just wait until mandatory healthcare hits nationwide; it's going great here in MA!). As soon as the other countries realize we are critically dependent on them for survival, we are screwed.

Incorrect. As stated earlier, Manufacturing has been leaving for many reasons not related to this at all, specifically Wages.

Incorrect again. Manufacturing has been leaving because business can pay less wages over seas, but the primary reason is corporate taxing. The U.S. is second highest in governmental taxing of corporations, only behind Japan.

It's no secret that if the U.S. wants its jobs back keep what we have, plus encourage potentially millions of new start ups, the reasonable answer is to decrease the corporate income tax.

False, you are confusing statutory and effective tax rates. The effective US corporate tax rate is actually quite low for Western nations.

View data here.

Corporations in 19 of the member states of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development paid 16.1 percent of their profits in taxes between 2000 and 2005, on average, while corporations in the United States paid 13.4 percent.

Companies blame corporate taxes as a red herring. It is politically infeasible to tell Americans that their jobs are leaving and will continue to leave until they accept a lower standard of living. However, this will continue to be reality regardless of effective or statutory tax rates. If the effective tax rate in the US was 0%, companies would still move labor to labor rich countries for factor advantages.

 

[Rockinacoustic]

Numbers Adding Up Against Obama's "Cap and Trade" Bill in the Senate

By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

It was hard for the Democrats to get the 219 votes they needed to pass the "cap and trade" climate change bill in the U.S. House two weeks ago. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, may have rolled the dice but, veteran Capitol Hillers say, it was only the intervention of President Barack Obama and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel that managed to close the deal.

They did it by pitching the vote as a referendum, at least internally, on Obama's presidency rather than on the underlying issue. No president likes to lose, least of all on a signature issue like the need to combat climate change, so the White House ratcheted up the stakes and, one presumes, took down names.

Of course the Democrats had help from eight Republicans, who are now on the receiving end of criticism of their own. It's gotten so thick, reports one senior Republican aide, the defecting GOPers are looking to members of the leadership to bail them out. Those requests have, thus far, fallen on deaf ears, the attitude being that those eight Republican "Aye" votes allowed eight potentially vulnerable Democrats to skate on what was, for them, a tough vote.

Now the bill heads to the U.S. Senate, where it may face an even tougher time, according to an analysis of the vote by Phil Kerpen, of the pro-taxpayer group Americans for Prosperity. Having crunched the numbers, Kerpen points out that out of 50 state delegations, 28 voted "No" and only 22 voted "Aye" on the House bill, and that more than a quarter of the votes in came from just two states: New York and California. Additionally:

- A majority of House Democrats in Indiana (3 of 5) and Arkansas (2 of 3) voted "No."

- Both Democrats in the West Virginia delegation (Rahall and Mollohan) voted "No."

- The lone Democrat from Louisiana (Melancon) voted "No."

- The at-large Democrats from North and South Dakota (Pomeroy and Herseth Sandlin) voted "No."

- Out of the remaining 44 states, a majority of the state's total congressional delegation (Democrats plus Republicans) voted "No" in nine that have at least one Democrat in the Senate.

This presents opponents of the House-passed bill with a target rich environment for their lobbying activities. The votes in the House will help provide political cover to those Senate Democrats who choose to take advantage of it?as the American people appear to sour on the costs of the House-passed bill.

According to a Rasmussen Reports survey of 1,000 U.S. adults taken after the House voted on the cap and trade legislation, 56 percent of Americans say "they are not willing to pay more in taxes and utility costs to generate cleaner energy and to fight global warming." Only 21 percent said they were willing to pay even $100 per year to address those goals. And 52 percent said that it was more important to keep the costs of energy "as low as possible" than to implement a green energy agenda.

As Rasmussen says in his analysis, "It is quite common to find Americans more favorable toward new government proposals until a price tag is attached." And the price tag for the House-passed version of the cap and trade bill is quite hefty.

Source


Good news if this thing falls through in the Senate. I think the longer legislators can get it to stall the more questionable Americans will be towards bills like this- it's already being painted with a huge monetary picture, and rightfully so. We need sensible Green Energy acts that take the environment and current economy into consideration, not this current agenda the government is trying to shove down our throats.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Liberator21

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: sandorski
In a few years none of you will even care about this. In fact, amongst those still caring, many will have changed their minds from Opposition to Support. You're all acting like this is some new Scheme Al Gore cooked up in some Gas Guzzling SUV. It was done before(Bush Sr as President) and was a great success then.

Dumb, and a lie. This has not been done before, and it's an incredibly harmful thing to the economy based on junk and unproven science, by anti Americans who dont even have the balls to confront skeptics of their junk science.

Incorrect

You are correct, sir. :thumbsup:


I thought everyone knew this.

"This is similar to the cap and trade program enacted by the Clean Air Act of 1990, which reduced the sulfur emissions that cause acid rain, and it met the goals at a much lower cost than industry or government predicted."

Unfortunately, sulfur IS a toxic waste byproduct. This whole Carbon ordeal is based around the misnomer that carbon is somehow a carcinogen, when in fact, it is not.

Trees produce it, humans EXHALE it - there's no way in hell we should be taxed because of something we're producing in our own bodies. Utterly ridiculous and fool hardy. I thought everyone knew this...

Completely wrong. I am not aware of a single expert in the entire history of mankind who has claimed CO2 is a carcinogen. Humans also excrete piss and shit, should we be taxed to clean up these things we produce with our own body?