1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87I'll sit quietly and comfortably from the position of knowledge and reason on this one. Not interested in arguing conspiracy theories.
Now now, sarcasm and its relationship to low wittedness aside, if I were to play the devils advocate on this one, then surely America lost its sovereignty in 1913 when with the passage of some perfectly timed legislation, saw the Federal Reserve and centralised banking take a firm grasp on America's money supply.**
** yes that old hoary chestnut, yet again.
Originally posted by whodeyWell he is a politician after all.
I thought you might. Actually, my main point of interest is the vote on cap and trade in the US. How is it that the Congress has not even voted on it yet Obama is making international promises anyhow?
I still don't get all the hubbub about cap and trade. I think people have been drinking the email spam kool aid on that one.
And before anyone starts throwing around quotes from the CBO, I've read all their releases on the subject (yes, there are more than one), and it's not all the horse caca some people peddle around here.
Originally posted by FMFMy beef is this. Suppose you want legislation X to be passed in Congress, however, before putting it up for a vote you make an international agreement that the US will see to it that legislation X will be passed. Then when you send it up for a vote before Congress, you shove the international agreement in their faces and tell them they are obligated by international law to vote for it.
Surely even a smattering of historical knowledge would indicate that this is commonplace in matters of international treaties? What is it about this case that makes you think Obama is doing something out of the ordinary.
Originally posted by whodeySo? Isn't it commonplace throughout U.S. history? Hasn't the U.S. negotiated, and pressured for, treaties and policies internationally, only to see its own legislators refuse to ratify the rsulting agreements? What's different about Obama as far as you are concerned?
My beef is this. Suppose you want legislation X to be passed in Congress, however, before putting it up for a vote you make an international agreement that the US will see to it that legislation X will be passed. Then when you send it up for a vote before Congress, you shove the international agreement in their faces and tell them they are obligated by international law to vote for it.
Originally posted by FMFI simply think it is putting the cart before the horse even though historically it has been done in the past. Personally, I think that the legislators should be included in such treaties. What good is it really without them?
So? Isn't it commonplace throughout U.S. history? Hasn't the U.S. negotiated, and pressured for, treaties and policies internationally, only to see its own legislators refuse to ratify the rsulting agreements? What's different about Obama as far as you are concerned?
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyI'm sure Obama has already discussed these issues at length with Congressmen and other interested parties - and I'm sure the other nations' leaders have spoken with their legislators.
I simply think it is putting the cart before the horse even though historically it has been done in the past. Personally, I think that the legislators should be included in such treaties. What good is it really without them?
It's hard to imagine holding treaty negotiations where the entire legislatures of each the countries was directly involved in the discussions. It's hard enough to get anything done when you just have a small handful of heads of state in the room.
None of these leaders wants the embarassment of agreeing to something that their own legislature subsequently rejects. So you can be sure that each leader has taken everyone's views at home into account.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyhow can you expect anyone to take you serious when you quote something from a site that ends in "scam.com"??
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/
"We can only hope that the world leaders will do nothing more than enjoy a pleasant bicycle ride around the charming streets of Copenhagen come December. For if they actually manage to wring out an agreement based on the current draft text of the Coipenhagen climate change treaty, the world is in for some nasty surprises. mic, tax and evnvironemental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty."
Grow up.
😕
Originally posted by whodeyI agree that businesses will pass costs on to consumers, but that does not mean that these costs will fall in greater proportion upon the poor (i.e. regressive). There are actually quite a few possible scenarios depending upon how the system is set up. In some cases the effects are actually very progressive. So whoever put it in your head that cap and trade is a regressive tax is a fool or a liar or both. Most likely you picked up this disinformation through the grapevine of propaganda coming out of manufacturing lobbies.
No doubt, the businesses will simply eat the extra cost and not pass it down to the consumer. 🙄
4 edits
Originally posted by telerionI found such a fool and liar for you. His name is Warren Buffett, you know, the guy who supported an Obama election. In fact, it was reported by the right winged New York Times.
I agree that businesses will pass costs on to consumers, but that does not mean that these costs will fall in greater proportion upon the poor (i.e. regressive). There are actually quite a few possible scenarios depending upon how the system is set up. In some cases the effects are actually very progressive. So whoever put it in your head that cap and tr ...[text shortened]... up this disinformation through the grapevine of propaganda coming out of manufacturing lobbies.
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/buffett-cap-and-trade-is-a-regressive-tax/
Still not convinced? How about Peter Orszag, Obamas budget director. He estimated that the price hikes from a 15% cut in emissions would cost the average household in the bottom income quintile (20% of the population) about 3.3% of its after tax income every year. That is about $680. The three middle quintiles would see their paychecks cut between $680 and $1,500 or 2.9 to 2.7% of their income.
The richest Americans would pay 1.7%.
Still not convinced? How about Dr. Sergey V. Mityakov, who is an associate professor in the Department of Economics at Clemson University? He writes, "Rerstricting carbon emissions by cap and trade is probably not a good idea even in a booming economy.j Many studies assessing the costs of mitigation of climate change (either through some cap and trade system or by means of a carbon tax) indicate that the losses in consumer welfare are likely to be enormous" Consumers will suffer directly from the increased prices of the energy and energy intensive goods they buy. Furthermore, higher energy prices will increase the production costs of American producers, making American goods less competitive in the world market." He also warned that because of increased energy costs and competition from abroad, some American companies would shift their production overseas where no cap and trade system is operating, moves that athe likely to lead to additional job losses in the US, further increasing the costs of the recession for the American households."
Still not convinced? How about the Congressional testimony given by Anne E. Smith Ph.D who is a nationally known expert in environmental policy assessment and corporate compliance strategy planning in 2007? She appeared before the Senates Committee on Evironmental and Public Works. The legislation would:
1. Decrease US average economic welfare by 1.1% to 1.7%.
2. The bill would cause real annual spending per household to be reduced by an average of $800 to $1,300 in 2015. j These spending impacts would increase to levels of $1,500 to over $2,500 by the end of our modeled time period, 2050.
3. There would be 1.2 million to 2.3 million net job losses by 2015. By 2020, it is projected that between 1.5 miliion and 3.4 million net job losses would occur.
I don't think anyone with even half a brain would be supporting cap and trade on the basis of it being good for the eonomy. In fact, when Obama speaks of those who support it he praises them for their "courage". Translated, you are doing what needs to be done no matter the cost. In short, I much prefer the arugment that the sky is falling to that of economic prudence in the support of such legislative dribble. Then again, maybe it will spur those million plus "green jobs "that the stimulus package failed to create as promised?
What can I say, the projected $645 billion in revenue from cap and trade by the year 2019 is just to much jack to pass up. Of course, don't expect them to do anything useful with this revenue, like paying down debt. No, the more money that comes in the more they spend. You know people like thisdon't you? I do. In fact, I know a woman that refinaces her house any time she discovers she has built up any equity in it whatsoever. Revenue is equivalent to crack cocaine to these people.
Originally posted by whodeyJust one little thing: the revenue of cap and trade can, in fact, I know this is shocking, but, it can be spent again! So if the cap and trade revenue is partly used to compensate the lower classes it can still be a progressive tax even if what you claim is true.
I found such a fool and liar for you. His name is Warren Buffett, you know, the guy who supported an Obama election. In fact, it was reported by the right winged New York Times.
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/buffett-cap-and-trade-is-a-regressive-tax/
Still not convinced? How about Peter Orszag, Obamas budget director. He estimated tha ...[text shortened]... ny equity in it whatsoever. Revenue is equivalent to crack cocaine to these people.