Democrats versus Republicans

[ssneade]

hey jack, not only should he go to his room, but he should take his mistress with him.

i'd do'er.......

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by ssneade

hey jack, not only should he go to his room, but he should take his mistress with him.

i'd do'er.......

I assume that you do not share his marital status.

[ssneade]

got me on a technicality. let me revise; i'd do'er if i was single.
been with my wife almost twenty years. probably forgotten how to woo another woman, though i was pretty good in my day.

this has gotten way off topic. howz about that cap and tax bill passing the house? trickery, trickery, trickery.

my guy voted no. probably because his office was flooded with calls informing him that a yes vote would put him on the unemployment line next term.

if you don't keep tabs on your rep, how are they gonna know how to vote in these situations. you can't rely on them to read your minds, and to stand idly by while the dems put us all in the poorhouse is lunacy.

those people are there to vote the way we feel, not the way they feel. the faster you show them that, the quicker we get out of this mess. now if your guy didn't listen, come next election, give him a new job........

[ssneade]

On Friday, your House of Representatives passed the largest tax increase in American history. Most of them probably couldn't tell you many details about the bill, considering the Democrats were still ramming through 300-page amendments as of late Friday night. In fact, on Friday afternoon House minority leader John Boehner tried to dissect some of the language of that 300-page amendment on the House floor. But after his mini-filibuster was over ... the House voted ... and it passed. There were 44 Democrats who voted against the bill. They're all up for re-election in 2010. But there were eight Republicans that ended up voting for the bill, which passed 219-212. So here they are.

Mary Bono Mack (CA)
Mike Castle (DE)
Mark Steven Kirk (IL)
Leonard Lance (NJ)
Frank A. LoBiondo (NJ)
John M. McHugh (NY)
Dave Reichert (WA)
Chris Smith (NJ)

So what can you do? Well, your voice can be heard at the ballot box. The next time these hacks come up for re-election, you simply vote them out of office. Show them that their time for monkeying around in Washington is over. That's it. We know this won't happen though. Every one of these politicians has a long list of wonderful pork projects they've brought back to their districts ... projects that give them all the reelection juice they need.

Meanwhile, now the next battle is in the Senate. Make even more of a concerted effort to contact your Senators and make sure that they won't be conned into voting for this huge tax increase based on the global warming scam.

For those of you who need a refresher ... here are some details from Investor's Business Daily:

An analysis of Waxman-Markey by the Heritage Foundation projects that by 2035 it would reduce aggregate gross domestic product by $7.4 trillion. In an average year, 844,000 jobs would be destroyed, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by almost 2 million (see charts below).

Consumers would pay through the nose as electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, as President Obama once put it, by 90% adjusted for inflation. Inflation-adjusted gasoline prices would rise 74%, residential natural gas prices by 55% and the average family's annual energy bill by $1,500.

Hit hardest by all this would be the "95% of working families" Obama keeps mentioning as being protected from increased taxation. They are protected, that is, unless they use energy. Then they'll be hit by this draconian energy tax.

And what would we get for all this pain? According to an analysis by Chip Knappenberger, administrator of the World Climate Report, the reduction of U.S. CO2 emissions to 83% below 2005 levels by 2050 -- the goal of the Waxman-Markey bill -- would reduce global temperature in 2050 by a mere 0.05 degree Celsius.

It's a scam, folks. It is not about the environment, it is about gaining power. It is not about creating jobs, because it won't. It will actually kill jobs. Speaking of that .........

[ssneade]

How would America's biggest oil companies react to this cap-and-trade legislation? Most people would say "who cares?" because they are big, bad, evil corporations. But you should care, because they big, bad, evil corporations also provide Americans with jobs and energy.

So how will these companies react? According to Bloomberg News, they will be closing plants, cutting capital spending and increasing imports. You see, fuel importers will only need to purchase permits for the fuel that is to be burned by cars, trucks, etc. Domestic oil companies, on the other hand, would also have to buy allowances for any CO2 produced by their plants. Clearly that would make domestic companies less competitive and create an imbalance in the market. Yeah .. .haven't thought of that one, have you?

The CEO of ConocoPhillips, Jim Mulva, says, "It will lead to the opportunity for foreign sources to bring in transportation fuels at a lower cost, which will have an adverse impact to our industry, potential shutdown of refineries and investment and, ultimately, employment."

It is estimated that one out of every six US refineries would close by 2020 because the cost of carbon allowances would simply erase profits, according to the American Petroleum Institute. For the consumer, carbon permits would add 77 cents to the price of a gallon of gasoline. Slowly, people have started to realize that Obama has mastered the art of increasing taxes on businesses, which ultimately pass on those increases in the form of price hikes for consumers.

[craigimass]

So what you are saying is that you think the $4 per gallon gasoline last year and the current energy policy is the right one?

[craigimass]

Originally Posted by ssneade

An analysis of Waxman-Markey by the Heritage Foundation projects that by 2035 it would reduce aggregate gross domestic product by $7.4 trillion.

The Heritage Foundation said we would win the Iraq war in three months. Their recent featured speaker was Dick Cheney, as his wife sits on their board. They are right wing loonies, and make no pretense of being anything but.

All the figures given here are for people who can't add, think or read.

What is "aggregate GDP"? That is not a term which is even used by most people or economists - yet you think YOU understand it? No way, Jose.....

Since the entire GDP of the US is only 15 Trillion, we have to read between the lines and figure out how they are trying to ******** us with that number. Ok, so maybe - we can guess that they mean 7.4 Trillion over the 41 years that this program would run? That would be "aggregate".

But this number is not even worth discussing because they don't know jackshit about what is gonna happen in 35 years......

The HEAD of the American Petroleum Trade Group said this when asked if there was a cost associated with the bill:
"There's a long way to go yet before I think you can make any kind of evaluation efforts.""

OK, so the guy MOST concerned with the bill admits that he cannot even say what the results will be, but the Heritage Think Tanks does? No way.

The bill is a compromise that will head us toward an energy future - if it ends up passing and if we abide by it. Of course, a future administration could rip the guts out of it.

But I KNOW...not a guess, I KNOW that this type of bill will result in more renewable energy and energy security for our country. In 20 years when I point out how far we have come to my GOP friends, what will their answer be? Will they deny it? Or will they just say that they would have gotten there quicker?

Call me back in 20 years and we'll see.

Oh, BTW, we already have cap and trade in the Mid-Atlantic and New England....which hold maybe 1/4 of the population of the USA, and it is working out well. We are financing conservation and renewable energy with the proceeds.

Ah, all republicans seem to do is say NO and point out the next boogeyman under my bed ready to bite me!

[camaraderie]

The folks in industry caving into the Waxman bill are doing so beause:
1. They prefer the bill to the EPA controlling them and doing even worse stuff.
2. They've gotten preferential treatment for their emissions.
3. They're gonna benefit from the trading OR have vested interests in green energy.

The purported purpose of the bill was to fight climate change. If you are one of the idiots who belive the UN/IPCC predictions...for all the costs of the Waxman bill...there will be a .1 degree reduction in warming in 100 years.
The Heritage organization is no more unbelievable than Greenpeace. Both exagerate...but the cost is much heavier than the CBO predicted because they did not evaluate the whole bill or take job losses overseas into account...the just did the cap/trade portion. NO cost should be born by the taxpayer for a bill with no effect.
If we want to get off foreign oil and create jobs that are permanent...we need to drill, dig (coal) and build nuke plants until such time as other alternatives are viable and economical. That is not saying NO...that is saying THIS IS STUPID and there is a BETTER WAY.

[ssneade]

the war was won in three months. our bad it too another six years to remove the chaff from the grain, so to speak....

[craigimass]

Typical move saying that Heritage lies because Greenpeace exaggerates. However, since the Heritage figures were designed to mislead and off by a factor of 10X, you cannot put even a drop of stock in them.

As to people (oil and gas and wind and solar) getting what they want out of a bill.........

Wow, this may come as a real surprise - so hold onto your seat!

THAT IS HOW ALL LEGISLATION IS CREATED IN THIS COUNTRY.

I should leave you the rest of the morning to soak that one in, but yes - legislation is made by the INTERESTED PARTIES all getting a seat at the table and hashing out the details. Republicans believe strongly in free speech for corporations - money=votes. In fact, that is a lot of the work of the Heritage Foundation and other rightie think tanks...to make sure corporate speech (money, lobbyists) has the largest possible effect.

Now, when it actually might work, you are against it?

Me thinks that you like democracy when it goes your way, but dislike it when it does not - and that is NOT DEMOCRACY AT ALL.