• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What impact would bypassing Congress and implementing Cap&Tax/Amnesty have on the US?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
heyheybooboo said:
I gotta laugh at Anus (as do we all).

'Cap&Tax' as proposed by Congress is actually 'Cap&Give Away'. And now we have the 'Cap&Tax/Amnesty' troll. Nice bumper sticker yah got there. Not to the level of 'Freedom Fries' but a dang fine effort nonetheless.

Too bad we can't Cap/Troll without Amnesty for the Wing Nuts.
Click to expand...

I have have to laugh at you for having the reading comprehension of a 2 year old. If you actually took the time to look at the question I was posing you would know that I am not looking specifically at the policies rather the impact of the executive branch imposing a "law" that will not pass congress.

If Congress decided it doesn't want to pass Cap & Trade or Amnesty and the executive branch uses regulatory authority to bypass congress does that make congress irrelevant?
 
Patranus said:
I have have to laugh at you for having the reading comprehension of a 2 year old. If you actually took the time to look at the question I was posing you would know that I am not looking specifically at the policies rather the impact of the executive branch imposing a "law" that will not pass congress.

If Congress decided it doesn't want to pass Cap & Trade or Amnesty and the executive branch uses regulatory authority to bypass congress does that make congress irrelevant?
Click to expand...

Yea let's change the subject . I seem to remember a president who had a record number of signing statements. But, that wouldn't have anything to do with abusing executive power.
 
Patranus said:
I have have to laugh at you for having the reading comprehension of a 2 year old. If you actually took the time to look at the question I was posing you would know that I am not looking specifically at the policies rather the impact of the executive branch imposing a "law" that will not pass congress.

If Congress decided it doesn't want to pass Cap & Trade or Amnesty and the executive branch uses regulatory authority to bypass congress does that make congress irrelevant?
Click to expand...

And yet the Supreme Court told the EPA: ""Go get 'em, boys and girls --- your authority exists under the Clean Air Act""

Which not surprisingly, was approved by Congress.

So .... nice Fail.


Please come again.





--
 
heyheybooboo said:
That's really a sad link.
Click to expand...

I gave that link because it has a link in it to a document put out by the EPA titled Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR).

Could EPA implement industry-specific or broader cap-and-trade programs under section 111?
Click to expand...

http://www.epa.gov/air/caaac/pdfs/2008_09_GHGshort.pdf

I'm sorry it's such a sad link. I just thought if someone was interested in the issue they would actually read what was linked and could read the EPA document for themselves.
 
NoWhereM said:
I gave that link because it has a link in it to a document put out by the EPA titled Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR).



http://www.epa.gov/air/caaac/pdfs/2008_09_GHGshort.pdf

I'm sorry it's such a sad link. I just thought if someone was interested in the issue they would actually read what was linked and could read the EPA document for themselves.
Click to expand...

Sorrry ... I hope it didn't appear like I was calling you out. I missed that other link. There was some good stuff in there.

emissionsbysector-trollcrap.jpg



:hmm:




--
 
woolfe9999 said:
How do you know that "no one would meet the requirement" without knowing what the requirement would be? The caps can be set anywhere.

- wolf
Click to expand...
The guidelines would be completely arbitrary, just like the fines. That's how the EPA (and the rest of government) works. You said it yourself: the caps can be set anywhere.
 
Completely different topics...

Amnesty: not much

Cap and Trade: Devastating loss of jobs as american companies become less competitive.

Without global trade requirements and tarriffs on nations that dont adopt it... Cap and Trade is nothing but negative.
 
Acanthus said:
Completely different topics...

Amnesty: not much

Cap and Trade: Devastating loss of jobs as american companies become less competitive.

Without global trade requirements and tarriffs on nations that dont adopt it... Cap and Trade is nothing but negative.
Click to expand...

Which is pretty much the point. Right now Americans use a disproportionate amount of energy, a measure of our prosperity and our freedom. Absent a game-changing energy source there is no way of changing that short of destroying that prosperity and freedom - in other words, "fundamentally transforming" our society. In the progressive view America as it is currently structured must be destroyed for the sake of the world and social justice.

What we should be doing is changing our existing regulatory requirements to mandate low energy systems for automobiles, buildings and equipment. What we are going to do is implement a cap and tax system that will allow government to choose winners and losers between states, industries, and individual businesses. Since these choices will inevitably by made on the basis of politics and political correctness, America's fall will only be that much faster and harder. This of course works well for the Saul Alinsky playbook for progressively establishing Marxism in America.
 
go ahead and do it. nothing like the the full force of arrogance and stupidity to get the voters attention.
 
CycloWizard said:
The guidelines would be completely arbitrary, just like the fines. That's how the EPA (and the rest of government) works. You said it yourself: the caps can be set anywhere.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the point I made in my post. I was responding to someone who claimed that no company would be able to stay under the cap, and hence every company would be paying fines and penalties which would amount to a de facto tax. I pointed out that no one knows where the cap would be and hence this statement was not supportable. The fact that a cap would be "arbitrary" is beside the point. That only means that it could be set very low which would burden a lot of companies, or very high so that it burdens very few.

- wolf
 
Only Congress has the right to tax. This will just cause a rush of people filing law suits against the EPA or the individual power companies, etc. Is that what you want? People are taxed enough already. We have huge federal and state taxes everytime we buy a gallon of gasoline. Do you want to add another dollar to the cost of one gallon of gasoline? The real issue is the Government wastes about 2/3rds of all the money they collect in taxes.
 
woolfe9999 said:
Irrelevant to the point I made in my post. I was responding to someone who claimed that no company would be able to stay under the cap, and hence every company would be paying fines and penalties which would amount to a de facto tax. I pointed out that no one knows where the cap would be and hence this statement was not supportable. The fact that a cap would be "arbitrary" is beside the point. That only means that it could be set very low which would burden a lot of companies, or very high so that it burdens very few.

- wolf
Click to expand...
It's the counterpoint to your own argument. You have no grounds to claim that he's wrong, just as he has no grounds to claim that he's right. The bottom line is that it's a problem because it's arbitrary.
 
What impact would bypassing Congress and implementing Cap&Tax/Amnesty have on the US?
Click to expand...

Tough call.

Outrage by many, for sure.

But I think it depends on what the SCOTUS does. Do they strike it down? Or let it stand. (I'm addressing what I belive is your broader question - the President bypassing Congress and essentially making laws by fiat, I don't wish to quibble about the specifics of the examples you raise.)

Aside from the outrage, and in the absense of SCOTUS stopping it, I think we'd see some serious confusion about how our government operates. I think people would be trying to analize it, find the limits of the President's power etc. Yes, Congress would look fairly useless, aside from their power over the budget and war-declaring.

I wonder if we'd see calls for impeachment from an angry Congress?

When the President can bypass Congress and effectively change significant 'laws' single-handedly I'll consider it revolutionary.

Fern
 
werepossum said:
Which is pretty much the point. Right now Americans use a disproportionate amount of energy, a measure of our prosperity and our freedom. Absent a game-changing energy source there is no way of changing that short of destroying that prosperity and freedom - in other words, "fundamentally transforming" our society. In the progressive view America as it is currently structured must be destroyed for the sake of the world and social justice.

What we should be doing is changing our existing regulatory requirements to mandate low energy systems for automobiles, buildings and equipment. What we are going to do is implement a cap and tax system that will allow government to choose winners and losers between states, industries, and individual businesses. Since these choices will inevitably by made on the basis of politics and political correctness, America's fall will only be that much faster and harder. This of course works well for the Saul Alinsky playbook for progressively establishing Marxism in America.
Click to expand...

Our energy policy is non existent. It basically amounts to buy oil then sell services and weapons to Saudi et al for dollars back. Some very well connected firms don't want this to change and Wall Street bankers want in on the action more is what Cap and Trade is all about. Read Talbbis piece in Rolling stone.http://www.nationalcenter.org/2009/07/rolling-stone-cap-and-trade-is-carbon.html

We do nothing to address the energy and geo political problem ....we have not built a nuclear reactor in 30 years while China and France has built hundreds of them. We have done little with clean coal, a resource that we have more of than anyplace else on the planet, 18 trillion worth. Thus We have done nothing to make electricity charged cars viable reducing our dependence on fundi oil thugs.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top