Time To Ignore The Party Of No?
Senate Democrats approved a climate bill without Republicans present, because Republicans were boycotting. Senator Barbara Boxer (right), head of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, made the bold move.
The bill would require cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent over the next decade from 2005 levels. But Republicans warned the bill would leave consumers with higher energy bills.
“This would be the largest tax increase in the history of America,” Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., one of the seven committee Republicans, told Fox News. “I can only conclude that they don’t want the public to know how much money this thing is going to cost.”
But the argument on the other side is that it creates jobs and reduces costs in the long term.
“There are those who will suggest that moving toward clean energy will destroy our economy, when it’s the system we currently have that endangers our prosperity and prevents us from creating millions of new jobs,” Obama told his audience at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Boxer said the bill provides “a clean energy future, creating millions of jobs and protecting our children from dangerous pollution.”
This is wonderful news. With any luck the angry Republican “nay-sayers” will boycotte everything, then we can see progress. What disturbs me though is this..when you boycott the forum you were sworn to participate in, and get payed for, you cheat the people you said you would represent.Who are they really punishing?
burqa Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
I say let-em stay out of the way while the real work for America gets done.
The Democrats need to toughen up and tell the GOP that they have tried to work with them, but Republicans just won’t compromise, so their “all-or-nothing” approach is going to get them nothing.
Right now the Democrats need to activate the nuclear option, but refer to it by the consrvative label, “The Constitutional Option.”
The Democrats need to tell the Republicans the train is leaving the station.
They need to point out that in the future, when people look back on this they will look back the same way they do on civil rights, environmental laws, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Those who were for those things get credit for improving the lives of Americans and those who opposed them merit opprobrium and are seen as being on the wrong side of history….
November 5th, 2009 at 10:42 am
I wonder if it would really create jobs…or just shift jobs around in the long run.
There may be a temporary boost as the green jobs start up, but would probably eventually be erased by jobs lost in other non-eco friendly sectors.
Does anyone know the specifics of what this bill does?
November 5th, 2009 at 10:45 am
I’m sure it’s just another left wing conspiracy that will kill babies, boil bunnies, and cause this great nation to sink into the dispair of commie values and socialism. (there ya go, now you don’t have to listen to Rush today)
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 10:54 am
I rarely if ever listen to rush…once a month maybe…if I happen to be in the car and my regular radio station is playing the only thing worse than Rush Limbaugh…the band Rush.
karthiks030977 Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
hate to butt in, but luv2lift, guido is a good egg, not one of those parroting views expressed on/by fox rush glenn etc…
his question here was a relevant one,if you dont have an answer to it, its fine, you dont need to try cover it up using sarcasm, it doesnt achieve anything…
luv2lift48 Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Not sarcasm..humor, albiet off color and maybe complicated for some.I’m sorry you didn’t detect the joke
flap Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
“guido is a good egg”
Guido, I thought I liked you until Karthik gave you a compliment…I may have to watch you more closely…
November 5th, 2009 at 10:51 am
“Senate Democrats approved a climate bill without Republicans present, because Republicans were boycotting.”
So this is like the Anbar Awakening.
How much do we have to pay them to go on boycotting?
goliath43 Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Do you understand checks and balances. Why there is a two party system.
TDro319 Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
And it would be fine if the republicans wanted to debate the issues. But it seems they are only interested in boycotting and are hellbent on destroying the democratic party. They care nothing about what’s best for the country and the American people, and that’s sad.
goliath43 Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
They did want to debate the issue,they wanted to know the cost of the program can you understand that? This isn’t about destroying the other party it all about the cost to the taxpayer. What is sad is the debt we have built in the last couple of years that will take generations and i mean generations to just pay the interest
TDro319 Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
So then how do you explain the republicans healthcare bill will cost the taxpayers MORE than the democrat’s version?
From what I’ve seen so far from the republicans, their sole agenda is the destroy the democratic party. They don’t care about their constituents.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Is the majority of the american public for or against regulation of CO2? just wondering….
Southern Girl Lib Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
http://people-press.org/report/556/global-warming. According to a recent Pew Poll, 57% are in favor.
November 5th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
luv2lift48 Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Not sarcasm..humor, albiet off color and maybe complicated for some.I’m sorry you didn’t detect the joke
I knew it was humor, and pretty good humor at that. :))
November 5th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
The GOP have revealed themselves as the typical
TEABAGGERS today at the capital.
Watch it on C-span.
November 5th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
This bill will never make it to the floor. Maybe the Californian libs are out of their mind right now, but the party faithful in most of the rest of the country know now that pushing leftwing agendas that are 30 or 40 years old instead of improving the economy is going to cost them. The captain can go down with the ship, rearranging the chairs will do you no good if you deny there’s an iceberg ahead. 10% and growing
burqa Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
After 8 years of wage stagnation while costs rose and health care more than devoured any gains, conservatives just don’t have much of a record on economic success.
The Democrats also have a better record than Republicans since World War II on job growth and GDP growth, need the stats?
November 5th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
One aspect of politics which I find truly puzzling is the lack of any apparent undecided Republicans on whether Climate change is real, man-made and/or a serious threat to our future.
The majority of scientific evidence indicates a ‘Yes’ to all three questions above. Despite this, I don’t discount the possibility that the minority is actually right. But in such a situation, how can anyone responsible, not ‘err on the side of caution’ and opt to take measures that might save our future rather than taking a gigantic gamble otherwise? Regardless of short-term costs.
Isn’t this a simple matter of logic, or am I missing something here?
goliath43 Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
I think you might be…For ever scientific study that supports global warming there is one against it and for every one of those studies there are differing opinions on the effect good or bad and everyone of the opinions are solutions to opinions and so on.
Do we need to protect the environment of course thru conservation recycling alternative fuel sourses but to throw tax dollars and regulations on the US industries only moves jobs out of this country to others countries.
Lee Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
“For ever scientific study that supports global warming there is one against it and for every one of those studies there are differing opinions”
I am sure you are wrong about the equal numbers but for the sake of argument let’s assume this is true. Where is the opinion that predicts a catastrophe if we do meaningfully act to ‘protect the planet’?
“of course thru conservation recycling alternative fuel sourses but to throw tax dollars and regulations on the US industries only moves jobs out of this country to others countries.”
So how do you think you encourage people/industry to shift to alternative fuels? As to your point on jobs, I refer you to Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons”. At some point, someone has to take the lead or we all lose anyway..
goliath43 Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
I’m sure that i am right +/- a couple of reports either way.
Haven’t seen the opinion on the impending doom of the planet but I don’t read science fiction.
I know taxing and regulating industry out of business like what is happening with our auto industry is not the answer. I know of Hardin don’t think much of him or his ideas. I do my part and you do your part and it will catch on with more people everyday recycling riding their bike to work turning down the temp everything helps.
Lee Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
“Haven’t seen the opinion on the impending doom of the planet but I don’t read science fiction.”
Well, there are lots of them, predicting such things as rising sea-levels, droughts, increased volatility in the weather, all this leading to outcomes like mass hunger, mass homelessness, mass species extinction etc..
Science fiction is when someone invents an idea/story out of nothing but imagination. Scientific theories are based on real observed data and experimental models.
There is little ’science fiction’ in the global warming discussion..
“I know taxing and regulating industry out of business”
Firstly, this is not a given by any stretch. Some businesses may fail to adapt, some will innovate and changing the market dynamics will also cause new industries to be viable (and they will be ‘Green’ as an added bonus)
Secondly, aside from Climate change, we have too many problems with fossil fuels, not least are the shortage of viable (economically) sources
as well as the political strings attached to the ones available. There is no easy way to wean industry off them.
” know of Hardin don’t think much of him or his ideas.”
Well do you offer any evidence to so grandiosely dismiss it? Think about overfishing? or excessive agricultural irrigation?
“I do my part and you do your part”
I live in the real world where most people are naturally self-centered. Unless you offer incentives, people/industry are not going to change their habits in a meaningful way.
John Galt Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
predicting such things as rising sea-levels, droughts, increased volatility in the weather,
Go back to the late 80’s early 90’s and start to record the predictions made by the alarmists. Then go check how many of them have actually come true.
Some businesses may fail to adapt, some will innovate and changing the market dynamics will also cause new industries to be viable
Undoubtedly true. Even truer, though, will be the fact that the economy will fail to grow at the rate it otherwise would’ve. This would result in a lower standard of living for us all, depriving us of such things as even medical break innovations.
not least are the shortage of viable (economically) sources
We are not even close to depleting the fossil fuel resources we have.
burqa Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
“I know taxing and regulating industry out of business like what is happening with our auto industry is not the answer.”
Cute cliche, but it is not what happened to cause the failure of our auto industry.
Notice Ford just posted a billion dollar profit under the same taxes and regulations.
Our government has regulated business since the founding of the nation, therefore it is a matter of degree. In the 80s it was argued the savings and loans were over-regulated and it was loosened. Soon, S&Ls were failing across the country and it ended up costing the taxpayer over $125 billion.
Other examples of regulation we need abound…
John Galt Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Soon, S&Ls were failing across the country and it ended up costing the taxpayer over $125 billion.
Cute cliche…….
placefield Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
A big part of our current problem is deregulation. I have just read a though provoking article from someone that claims our current economic crisis is largely due to three bills.
First the passage of the Depository Institution Deregulation and Monetary Control Act in 1980 under Carter which eliminated the power of the Federal Reserve [under the Glass-Steagall Act and Regulation Q] to set certain interest rate caps, thereby increasing the flow of funds from new depositors of savings and loan associations—making sub-prime lending more feasible.
Second the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act in 1982 under Reagan which removed more controls and regulations, thereby inviting the abuses that would culminate in the S&L crisis.
And finally the signing of the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act under Clinton which let banks offer investment and insurance services.
All deregulation, both parties to blame.
burqa Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 12:10 am
“Soon, S&Ls were failing across the country and it ended up costing the taxpayer over $125 billion.
Cute cliche…….”
It’s not a cliche, John.
Did you somehow miss the story of the S&L disaster and the Resolution Trust Corporation?
It was in all the papers.
This will help you catch up:
http://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/banking/2006sep/article2/article2.pdf
Oh, and are you aware that Neil Bush barely escaped prosecution? It helps when the AG is an old family friend….
.
Lee Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 2:12 am
“Go back to the late 80’s early 90’s and start to record the predictions made by the alarmists. Then go check how many of them have actually come true”
You are missing the point. The question is not whether they are definately right but more importantly are they definately wrong. If you cannot answer that question with a ‘yes’ then the only sensible approach is to take it seriously and see what you can do to avert possible disaster.
“We are not even close to depleting the fossil fuel resources we have.”
With respect, you need to understand the subject a little better. We are in fact very close to depleting ‘cheap’ sources of fossil fuels. While there are lots of sources still available such as those offshore, in shale sands etc, they are so expensive both economically and environmentally (such as water consumption) that we have to find a solution very soon.
Right now, we have problems with alternative sources as well which is why we have to do a radical R&D effort now. In fact, the only possible hope we have today of meeting our energy needs over the coming decades is Nuclear power but even that has a lot of issues (water consumption is one).
Lee Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 3:38 am
Placefield,
“A big part of our current problem is deregulation”
This part I agree with but I disagree about the bills you mentioned in the 80’s. I’d like to see the evidence cited for such a claim but it’s a tough sell considering the evolution of the meltdown didn’t begin until the beginning of this decade.
There is no question the 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagal was one pillar of the crisis but the other was the 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act. The first act turned normal banks into “casino’s” and the second act essentially removed the “house limit”.
These ‘bets’ were made on ‘Credit Default Swaps’ and were considered ’sure things’ thanks to ratings agencies like Moody’s, Fitches etc and in order to get more of them you needed to get banks/brokers to sell mortgages (with the ability to repay irrelevant to them).
In 2001 the CDS market was 800 million dollars, in 2006 it was 26 trillion dollars!. This was a market that relied quite simply on people paying their mortgage on time. When the housing market finally dried up and ARM’s started resetting with people being unable to refinance, that’s what caused this tsunami.
However, I’m not an expert and maybe there is more to this story than I’ve already read so I’m at least curious to understand the reasoning behind the article you cited.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
I believe the “party of NO” is the liberal dems who continue to say NO to the American people who DO NOT want cap and trade nor their health-care bill. They continue to say NO to the constitution.
OldLefty Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 8:49 am
Deb said,
“I believe the “party of NO” is the liberal dems who continue to say NO to the American people who DO NOT want cap and trade nor their health-care bill. They continue to say NO to the constitution.”
………………
Sen. Barack Obama has made an aggressive carbon cap-and-trade program the centerpiece of his energy and environmental agenda.
The American people said YES.
The liberals said that the Bush administration “They continued to say NO to the constitution.”
I think the other side has been saying that since the country’s inception…..NOTHING new here.
“I WILL say NO to Boxer in 2010!!!”
………
Good for you!
I’ll send her some money.
November 6th, 2009 at 8:28 am
I WILL say NO to Boxer in 2010!!!
November 6th, 2009 at 8:30 am