Hey, subby. Look at you calendar. It's the 21st century.
Creating energy by burning fossils and belching carbon dioxide
residue into the air is how a lot of Republican donors get rich but it's no longer in the best interest of average Americans.

If you can't see that, the tag belongs to you.

Percentage wise, I think the biggest tax increase in history would have been the one when they increased it from 0 to anything greater than 0.

CAP AND TRADE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!

largest tax increase in history

Fark off with your bullshiat talking points.

FireBreathingLiberal: Hey, subby. Look at you calendar. It's the 21st century.
Creating energy by burning fossils and belching carbon dioxide
residue into the air is how a lot of Republican donors get rich but it's no longer in the best interest of average Americans.

If you can't see that, the tag belongs to you.


Write your Congresscritter a letter demanding more nuclear power plants and I'll sign it, too.

Oh, and they didn't pass the bill yet. The article says the passed a vote to determine whether they should vote on the bill. Though that will probably happen a little later tonight.

You are a farking idiot, and what's wrong with America. Go choke on a smokestack.

It boggles my mind that so many people want to be taxed into poverty. For those who are in favor of this: why wait for the bill to pass? If your electric bill is $200/month, pay $400. If it costs $30 to fill your gas tank, pay $60 and tell the cashier to keep the change.

ScubaDude1960: It boggles my mind that so many people want to be taxed into poverty.


That's what boggles your mind? Does the hardening of Jello keep you awake at night?

ScubaDude1960: It boggles my mind that so many people want to be taxed into poverty.

I find it funny that the Right has just now discovered 'taxing into poverty' to be a new thing.

FireBreathingLiberal: belching carbon dioxide
residue into the air is how a lot of Republican donors get rich

Lot of democrats, too. Or is mining coal and drilling oil strictly the domain of republicans?

wee: Lot of democrats, too. Or is mining coal and drilling oil strictly the domain of republicans?


He's talking about donors. People who get rich off of mining and drilling have the GOP to thank for fewer regulations and huge profits. Like when Bush kept the taxes down on big oil to "help them" invest - all during record setting profits. Bush also gutted MSHA by putting a mining lobbyists in charge of that group...

wee: Lot of democrats, too. Or is mining coal and drilling oil strictly the domain of republicans?

Rabble rabble rabble robber barons rabble rabble Republicans rabble rabble...

Thirty Democrats defected... many from Midwestern industrial-coal states, were sitting on the fence, worried about how to explain their vote for higher energy prices to people back home - and how the vote might play out in elections next year.

LOL WUT

This will especially suck for businesses who use electricity to light their workplaces, run their machinery, and weld.

Thanks Democrats!

ScubaDude1960: It boggles my mind that so many people want to be taxed into poverty.

Remember how Jesus told the disciples to stop paying Caesar his taxes cause they were being taxed into poverty? Thats where it all began...

ZOMG!! Let's not actually pay for the real cost of using carbon based fuels. Maybe if we ignore the price of cleaning up our mess or call it a tax it will go away! Wharrrrgarbl! Socialism! Obama is Hitler!

darkhorse23: I find it funny that the Right has just now discovered 'taxing into poverty' to be a new thing.

Republicans are usually the party of reduced taxes.

OK, honestly, anyone that is in favor of this cap and trade scheme -- do you really believe that its enactment would have any noticeable affect on worldwide CO2 output? Considering that China and India are spewing out CO2 like no one's business, and that amount will only go up in the future, does any action taken without their cooperation and agreement to match do anything other than increase the cost of doing business in the United States?

KaponoFor3: OK, honestly, anyone that is in favor of this cap and trade scheme -- do you really believe that its enactment would have any noticeable affect on worldwide CO2 output? Considering that China and India are spewing out CO2 like no one's business, and that amount will only go up in the future, does any action taken without their cooperation and agreement to match do anything other than increase the cost of doing business in the United States?

By that logic, what is the point of any environmental regulation in the United States?

Obdicut: By that logic, what is the point of any environmental regulation in the United States?

Because not all environmental regulation targets Co2 emissions.

Looks like my electric bill is about to see a big increase. There goes my $30/mo tax break.

KaponoFor3: OK, honestly, anyone that is in favor of this cap and trade scheme -- do you really believe that its enactment would have any noticeable affect on worldwide CO2 output? Considering that China and India are spewing out CO2 like no one's business, and that amount will only go up in the future, does any action taken without their cooperation and agreement to match do anything other than increase the cost of doing business in the United States?


The bill calls for us to assess their progress toward goals we set and unsparingly wag our finger at them when they fail to make enough any. So there!

IronTom: Republicans are usually the party of reduced taxes.


For the top 5% and giant corporations, sure...

pwhp_67: For the top 5% and giant corporations, sure...

Actually, during the campaign, it was McCain whose tax plan gave a cut in taxes to every American regardless of income level. Obama's didn't.

Cap and Trade has failed everytime it has been implemented in other countries. I just hope you don't like having any manufacturing jobs in this country.

KaponoFor3: Actually, during the campaign, it was McCain whose tax plan gave a cut in taxes to every American regardless of income level. Obama's didn't.


It shouldn't have. Bush had already lowered taxes for the top 5%. Obama put them back to where they were and then cut taxes for the rest of us so we could buy food...

pwhp_67: KaponoFor3: Actually, during the campaign, it was McCain whose tax plan gave a cut in taxes to every American regardless of income level. Obama's didn't.


It shouldn't have. Bush had already lowered taxes for the top 5%. Obama put them back to where they were and then cut taxes for the rest of us so we could buy food...

And then promplty took that food out of your mouth with sin taxes, cap and trade, feel-good social programs like the airport to no-where, and health care initiatives. He is also taking the food out of your unborn childrens' mouths before you even buy it.

pwhp_67: It shouldn't have. Bush had already lowered taxes for the top 5%. Obama put them back to where they were and then cut taxes for the rest of us so we could buy food...

The fact remains: one nominee's plan only gave tax breaks to people below a certain income level, whereas the other's plan gave tax breaks to everyone regardless of income. I think it's clear which candidate was more focused on fairness and equality when it came to his tax program.

Nemo's Brother: I just hope you don't like having any manufacturing jobs in this country.


We don't have any now...

KaponoFor3: I think it's clear which candidate was more focused on fairness and equality when it came to his tax program.


The fact remains: the top 5% had their tax rates cut several times while the rest hadn't seen a tax cut in decades. So one segment of the population was overdue for a tax cut and the other was not.

I think it's clear which candidate was more focused on fairness and equality when it came to his tax program.

pwhp_67: KaponoFor3: I think it's clear which candidate was more focused on fairness and equality when it came to his tax program.


The fact remains: the top 5% had their tax rates cut several times while the rest hadn't seen a tax cut in decades. So one segment of the population was overdue for a tax cut and the other was not.


What are you talking about? The child tax credits Bush enacted went mainly to middle and working class families, removing more than a few from the tax rolls altogether. As a single person, I saw a cut of abotu $40. My liberal friend with two kids who hated Bush with a fiery passion got a $4,000 cut.

KaponoFor3: Because not all environmental regulation targets Co2 emissions.

Okay.

By that logic, what is the point of any environmental regulation in the United States that is regulatory of a general emission-- something that interacts with the whole environment, like, say, CFCs?

Obdicut: By that logic, what is the point of any environmental regulation in the United States that is regulatory of a general emission-- something that interacts with the whole environment, like, say, CFCs?

I agree. These are issues that effect the globe as a whole and, more specifically, those undeveloped states that generally sit between the tropics and near the equator. The US can do whatever it wants on these types of issues unilaterally, but it will make zero sense and will have no effect on the problem unless it is part of a broader agreement that also brings in those rapidly developing countries like China and India and their thirst for natural resources to match their rising demand.

KaponoFor3: I agree. These are issues that effect the globe as a whole and, more specifically, those undeveloped states that generally sit between the tropics and near the equator. The US can do whatever it wants on these types of issues unilaterally, but it will make zero sense and will have no effect on the problem unless it is part of a broader agreement that also brings in those rapidly developing countries like China and India and their thirst for natural resources to match their rising demand.

You agree with what? I didn't state a position.

Do you feel that the actual history of what happened with CFCs makes the position you appear to be taking weaker, or stronger?

When you say things like "no effect", are you being literal, or engaging in hyperbole?

Obdicut: You agree with what? I didn't state a position.

You said: what is the point of any environmental regulation in the United States that is regulatory of a general emission-- something that interacts with the whole environment, like, say, CFCs?

Do you feel that the actual history of what happened with CFCs makes the position you appear to be taking weaker, or stronger?

The analogies with CFCs and carbon emissions is not a perfect one, but its the one you offered. It's my understanding that CFC emissions have gone down since the US enacted anti-CFC regulations. But, I believe that also recognizes that the US was by far the largest user of CFCs at the time of the legislation. With carbon emissions, China and India will soon surpass us (if they haven't already).

Obdicut: When you say things like "no effect", are you being literal, or engaging in hyperbole?

No "significant" effect, how about that? I mean, that's really the point of the legislation -- to have a significant effect.

pwhp_67: KaponoFor3: I think it's clear which candidate was more focused on fairness and equality when it came to his tax program.


The fact remains: the top 5% had their tax rates cut several times while the rest hadn't seen a tax cut in decades. So one segment of the population was overdue for a tax cut and the other was not.

I think it's clear which candidate was more focused on fairness and equality when it came to his tax program.

What the hell are you going on about? Bush's 2001 cuts dropped ALL tax brackets, not just the top brackets.

darkhorse23: ScubaDude1960: It boggles my mind that so many people want to be taxed into poverty.

I find it funny that the Right has just now discovered 'taxing into poverty' to be a new thing.

What makes you think I'm on "the Right?"

KaponoFor3: . It's my understanding that CFC emissions have gone down since the US enacted anti-CFC regulations. But, I believe that also recognizes that the US was by far the largest user of CFCs at the time of the legislation. With carbon emissions, China and India will soon surpass us (if they haven't already).

So the difference in situations is..?

(Since you don't seem to have data, here you go:

Link (new window)

Link (new window)

Link (new window)(that's per capita)


KaponoFor3: No "significant" effect, how about that? I mean, that's really the point of the legislation -- to have a significant effect.

And it's your scientific analysis that it will have no significant effect?

Taking the lowest value for US output, we are responsible for 22.2% of worldwide anthropogenic CO2 emissions. China is currently at 18.4%, using the most "optimistic" view of their output. Now, our per-capita, amount, of course, is massively, hugely higher than that.

China is currently slated to meet and pass us in 2015, at which point they will be accounting for roughly 20.1%, as will we. Now, if we change, and lower our amount of CO2, they will pass us more quickly.

Can you think of any downstream affect that us adopting lower-CO2 technology might possibly have on China?

Speaking of CFCs, this might be of interest to you.

Link (new window)

By the way, it appears to be your contention that if we cut back our CO2, and then are able to get China to cut back on their CO2, our initial CO2 cutback will somehow be useless. Can you explain that?

Obdicut: So the difference in situations is..?

... that it is widely recognized that India and China are projected to have their Co2 emission outputs explode in the next 10-20 years, you know that is true. I know you know that is true.

Obdicut: By the way, it appears to be your contention that if we cut back our CO2, and then are able to get China to cut back on their CO2, our initial CO2 cutback will somehow be useless. Can you explain that?

That's not my contention. China won't cut back on their Co2 because their economy depends far too heavily on it.

KaponoFor3: ... that it is widely recognized that India and China are projected to have their Co2 emission outputs explode in the next 10-20 years, you know that is true. I know you know that is true.

And I asked what the difference in the situation was-- I assumed you knew the same was true for CFCs in China and India at the time. Do you not?

KaponoFor3: That's not my contention. China won't cut back on their Co2 because their economy depends far too heavily on it.

Ah. I didn't realize you were an expert on Chinese economy and politics. My apologies; I'm clearly wasting my time attempting to lecture an expert on the subject.

Interesting note: When we were attempting to cut down CFCs, the initial agreement actually allowed China (and other developing nations) to continue increasing their use of CFCs for a ten-year period. I wonder why that was? Seems so counterintuitive.

I'm sure a China expert like yourself can explain it, though, right?

So how many "largest tax increases in history" are we up to now?

KaponoFor3: OK, honestly, anyone that is in favor of this cap and trade scheme -- do you really believe that its enactment would have any noticeable affect on worldwide CO2 output? Considering that China and India are spewing out CO2 like no one's business, and that amount will only go up in the future, does any action taken without their cooperation and agreement to match do anything other than increase the cost of doing business in the United States?

The only thing that this bill will affect is my electric bill (along with anything that is made in a plant using electricity) and the salaries of thousands of Wall Street workers who will be setting up and implementing the cap and trade system through their companies.
Look at how well this scheme has worked in England and you will see what is coming for us.

"Overall, costs for households would average 0.2 percent of their average after-tax income."

Bono Mack, Castle, Kirk, Lance, LoBiondo, McHugh, Reichert, and Smith (NJ) put cap-and-trade over the top. (^)

cehlen: and the salaries of thousands of Wall Street workers who will be setting up and implementing the cap and trade system through their companies.

So invest in those companies, doofus :)

MuadDib: Bono Mack, Castle, Kirk, Lance, LoBiondo, McHugh, Reichert, and Smith (NJ) put cap-and-trade over the top. (^)

FTFA:

Rep. Geoff Davis, a Republican from Kentucky, said the cap-and-trade bill represented the "economic colonization of the heartland" by New York and California.

What a putz.

The solution has been so simple over the last 20 years. Build more nuclear plants.

Unfortunately, we get the idiocy that is cap-and-trade, not a solution that will really solve our energy problems.

Yay Obama...more of the same that no-one believes in anymore.

So we're in the middle of a major economic crackdown, people are suffering and losing their jobs, and somebody thinks making energy more expensive for everyone is the solution?



Ijit's all of them; if you want to encourage "Green Technology" offer tax *savings* to those who pursue it instead of forcing everyone to pay higher costs for your personal jihad against the eeeebil environment.

Obdicut: Ah. I didn't realize you were an expert on Chinese economy and politics. My apologies; I'm clearly wasting my time attempting to lecture an expert on the subject.

Do you disagree with this assertion -- that China's economic growth will correspond with a significant increase in their Co2 output during that same time period?

I'm not an expert on Chinese politics and the economy, but it appears that I have more knowledge on it than you do seeing as you think if the US takes the lead that China will magically follow behind us in cutting CO2 emissions despite the fact it would drastically slow down their economic growth.