Cap & Trade: Get on the phones!!

[fantastic_jackie]

If this is passed, the United States will fundamentally change as we know it. I am dead serious. This is an unprecedented power grab.

Read through the links; I haven't had any time to complete my post about this, but it is SERIOUSLY. BAD. NEWS. For the economy. For your taxes. And for our freedoms in this country. You think you lost freedoms under Bush? Wait until this gets passed!

There are representatives on the fence still! The NATION is on the phone to Washington - CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES!! Mine is one of the ones leading the charge against it.

Forget parties! Forget the environment. This is NOT for the environment. The projections are that it could lower the temperature by .05 DEGREES in 2050!!! This is NOT about the environment! It's about the government taking unprecidented control over business and ENERGY, about under-the-table deals between the government and giant corporations, about bribes that have been caught on tape for representatives to support this legislation! It is a GIANT HIDDEN TAX!! That will COST us more jobs than it will create!! Just look at Spain!!

I am at work. I can't get on the phone anymore. This is ridiculously important. Call them NOW. The pressure needs to increase and stay at volume! They were talking about shutting down the communications at one point! The Republican minority leader was doing the House version of the filibuster over this!

These links to forum topics have all the information you need; I don't have time to neatly compile it for you.

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1528131 - Skip to the last pages.
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1528811

Watch it unfold on C-Span

ETA: It passed. Now it's on to the Senate. All hail the government; we bow and grovel at their wiser-than-thou wisdom and money-lined pockets.

Goodbye American Business. The House just passed the bill that will really make the people complain about outsourcing jobs.

In the middle of a recession. Tch. GE is literally jumping for joy now...

Comments

[adaon6.livejournal.com]

The senate is most likely going to sit on this until they think they can pass it quietly, or tack it on to another "must pass" bill.

[patriot-jackie.livejournal.com]

Oh, undoubtedly. We'll have to watch for it, especially through this healthcare catastrophe of a bill.

The only reason this was a "must pass" was because the People were almost completely blindsighted by it. They added the 300 page amendment to it at 3:09 AM; there was only ONE COPY of the bill, so no one had read it. What little Rep. Boehner read was all anyone knew - and though I don't know what it all covered, the sparse details I heard through the frenzy of online updates were ridiculous.

[godricgal.livejournal.com]

How would you tackle the problem?

[adaon6.livejournal.com]

if you mean bad congress people who vote on a 1,200 page bill without reading it first, I generally recomend voting against the person that's been there too long.

[godricgal.livejournal.com]

I don't, but I also don't know what you're talking about, I'm afraid.

[adaon6.livejournal.com]

I consider it to be a failure of the represenative if they would pass a bill without actually knowing what's in it.

That's just me who doesn't like to find out a few weeks or months later they just voted for the great depression 2 because they didn't use an once of reason in what they did.

[patriot-jackie.livejournal.com]

lol Go easy on her, Gene! She's not from the U.S. ;)

[adaon6.livejournal.com]

will do ^_^

[godricgal.livejournal.com]

Isn't it a failure of law that they're allowed to pass a bill they haven't read?

[adaon6.livejournal.com]

I don't really know a way to mandate that by law, but it is their choice so I believe in holding them responsable for that choice.

I come from a school of thought that government should do as absolutely little as possible. If all they did was pass the budget to fund the military and infastructure, I'd be happy.

[godricgal.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure if there is, either, but the debate is open over here about whether we should hold our MPs subject to more rules or simply have the expectation that they are good, upstanding people who want to do their jobs honestly. Obviously the latter is the ideal, but it seems to be a bit too much to ask at the moment.

I'm all for central government getting their noses out of issues which can and should be handled at a local level, but there are some things which have to be handled centrally. I'm trying to imagine a US with a government as you describe and all I can see is chaos.

[patriot-jackie.livejournal.com]

I'm all for central government getting their noses out of issues which can and should be handled at a local level, but there are some things which have to be handled centrally. I'm trying to imagine a US with a government as you describe and all I can see is chaos.

Think of American government (or rather what it’s supposed to be) as flipped upside down.

When our Founding Fathers initially revolted, it was to get away from the tyranny of Total Government – monarchy, taxation and governing without representation. We went from Anarchy to the Articles of Confederation (which were still too close to Anarchy –a byproduct of their fear of centralized, strong government) to finally the Constitution.

What they did was revolutionary: they flipped the central governing system on its head. Governmental power is supposed to flow as such, from most to least power over intrusion into the Peoples’ lives:

Local
State
Federal

So we're not talking anarchy - just power at a different level. Now naturally, local governments can’t cross State governments, and State governments can’t cross the Federal government.

The thing that the U.S. in general has forgotten is that the Federal government cannot cross the Constitution. The Constitution is not a legislative document, but a limiting document, delineating powers to each level and branch of governance down to the Individual. But the Constitution is “crossed” every day, and the Federal government gobbles up more power, assumed from the People and the States, with every new bill.

It’s all in our name: the United States of America. :)

(I don’t agree with the Libertarian model of infrastructure and military only, though.)

[patriot-jackie.livejournal.com]

To which problem are you referring? lol

'Cause there's a whole slew of them this bill brings along with it... and I doubt you'd want to sit through my entirerant about every one of them. -Assuming I could name them all. Because we still don't know what the original bill entails, let alone the 300 page amendment they added at 3:09 AM this morning. There was only one copy of the complete bill; no one knows what's in it.

[godricgal.livejournal.com]

I was referring to the problem of climate change.

Obviously my knowledge about your bill is limited, I'm only British, after all, but to me the idea of this bill makes a lot of sense. The two single biggest issues facing the world today are the financial crisis and global warming, and with brave and bold action, the solutions to both lie together. In fact, it would be ridiculous not to act with both in mind in all steps. Of course it's going to upset the equilibrium, of course it's going to send some businesses out of business, but that's just the nature of it, anyway. If you want to survive you have to innovate, and it is essential that in that process, thought is given to more than making as much money as possible, and if that has to happen through legislation, then so be it.

[adaon6.livejournal.com]

It would take a marathon of words to point out all the flaws in the global warming theory, but I'll summarize like this. If global warming is true, it would be the only scientific truth in ALL history unwilling and unable to stand up to scientific questioning and review. They are very quick to shout people down and say "the debate is over" which is very unusual for truth...

As for what government's role in dealing with this would be. Well I think the best argument is that they get everything else wrong why should we believe they would do this right? When you look at something like the Kyoto protocol, it actually allows most countries to expand their emissions. If every country in the world followed it, it would be a drastic up tick in greenhouse gases while having the side effect of crushing the industrial sector of the US economy.

I guess at the end of the day it all comes down to this: Whenever someone says "we have to do this NOW NOW NOW." I want to know what scam they are trying to pull. :)

[godricgal.livejournal.com]

It astounds me that anyone can still take this position. Let's just pretend for a moment that there is still a measure of doubt that human activity has resulted in atmospheric change which has caused temperatures to rise and say that there is a ten or twenty percent chance that it is true. Is that really a risk you want to take? Is it really?

To not do anything is at best burying your head in the sand and leaving it for the next generation to sort out, and at worst, selfish and lazy.

I haven't seen anyone present an argument against climate change that hasn't hinged on economic points: it'll cause job losses, it'll mess up the economy, it'll cost too much money. And it makes sense that it's the Republican quarter who are saying this, but it's not an economic issue, it's a social one and that gives each and every one of us responsiblity in both cause and solution.

[adaon6.livejournal.com]

Well, I tried to make the case based on global warming is scientific but that failing I do have a couple other points on the matter. (I pruned this down a bit to things I have seen or could directly source).

Did you know that one of the weather stations that showed a high movement of temperature that skewed the averages went from being a grassy area that absorbs heat to a paved one that reflects it and gets much hotter?

Did you know that one of the stations that showed a high movement upwards had a air conditioner exhaust put in next to it?

Did you know that that the increase has only been measured in surface temperature, not atmospheric temperature? Average surface temperature has changed .6 to .8 degrees C, but like any average if you were to throw some improper numbers in it the result changes. Balloon and satellite measures do not show this change. I direct you to NASA as a source: http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm


Did you know they lied every chance they got in the wake of a big hurricane season a couple years ago claiming global warming was causing stronger hurricanes? They never found an actual hurricane expert to say that, it was always a "global warming" expert to say it. Having lived in the path of multiple hurricanes in one year this one really hit home.

I don't trust the people who make the claims, they lie too much. I'm well researched on this, I happen to be a former believer in global warming. All my Saturday morning cartoons raised me to believe there was such a thing. I couldn't believe anyone would say something else. Until I realized who was arguing with science and who was arguing pay no attention to the science.

If there is any part you would like me to spend more time on I would be happy to. I could also give you a book referral if you would like to spend more time on this. :)

[godricgal.livejournal.com]

The results of any study must be scrutinised, it's credibility assessed and a conclusion drawn about its academic veracity. I do not have time to look at the one you have directed me to or to look into the others, but they are just as likely to be affected but outside factors as any other study.

Not sure who the mysterious 'they' are, but there are currently 183 states (that was correct in April) signed up to the Kyoto protocol, which, whatever you think about the terms of the protocol, demonstrates a significant level of concern among a very significant number of countries, all of whom have presumably conducted their own research into the existence of climate change, and have concluded that it is, indeed, enough of a concern to take the step to sign. If you are suggesting that all these governments are in on it together is some sort of grand conspiracy, then it would be the greatest demonstration of international cooperation in history.

I, too, am well researched on this, and I thank you for the offer of a book, but I have just taken fifteen on the topic back to the library, so I'm good for now. ;)

Am disappearing now, not ducking out the debate. Have got to catch a train to London in an hour.

[adaon6.livejournal.com]

Have a safe trip.

Ironicly Kyoto was one of the things I pruned because I didn't want to go find my old sources again. Almost every country under Kyoto stays almost the same, or has room to grow under it. The US would be the largest exception which would be the only country called upon to make a major sacrifice. The net result would be that the US would buy carbon credits from other countries. Who would have them to spare? Africa.

It's a payoff to the largest voting block on the UN. It's a tax and redistrubute by another name.

No I don't think it's a "grand" consperiecy among every country, I think it's the same people who won't read a 300 page ammendment and still vote yes on it. They just accept the word of a couple of people as absolute truth.

[patriot-jackie.livejournal.com]

What do you mean only British? =P I told him what I did because he seemed to be expecting you to know basic details covered about the bill in the media, and I knew you probably wouldn’t know that stuff. I didn't mean to rub your nose wrong or anything!

But let’s take a look at the economic issues this raises. The economy is incredibly important, as you already established, so we really should understand as much as we can about what this is going to do; in all honesty, I’m not sure why we wouldn’t take into consideration the negative factors this will have on our economy if indeed it is so important, even if we place the same import on the environment...

"The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

[…]

Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn't take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others -- manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html

Despite what history teachers and school books tell us about the Civil War, it wasn’t all about slavery. Slavery was an issue, to be sure, but the real issues were States Rights and the North’s unfair taxes and tariffs that they were placing on Southern goods. These were the real boiling points, and Slavery as a State’s Rights issue, thus the reason why the Civil War is also referred to as the War of Northern Aggression. (Well… that and they literally fired on the South first. After the Southern states seceded.)

Anyway. This is a repeat. It’s just ONE of the many issues involved, but Southern and so-called “Fly-over States” will be far more adversely affected by this than the liberal Coastlines whose representatives are the large supporters of it. Production, as always, happens in Southern States and Flyover Country.

There’s also the deal that was made as a payoff to farmers in order to garner the support of Southern Rural Democrats in the House: they created an exemption for farmers that produce corn for ethanol. I don’t know how it affected y’all over there, but the last time there was a push for ethanol, it created a shortage. It didn’t help that we had hurricanes and bad weather wiping out crops at the same time, either. In any case, ethanol doesn’t work; it’s inefficient. But what’s going to happen is that farmers are going to see that they can make more money and pay less in taxes if they grow corn instead of other crops.

Does this seem like an issue to you?

What is it going to do to the cost of food, which will already be impacted by rising energy costs and the new regulations on farmers this bill promises with its passing, if less farmers are growing it?

And these are just TWO tiny pieces of the GIANT 1500 page bill that no one’s read all the way through. In comparison, the Constitution, the supreme law of our land, was only 4 pages. Personally, I think the economy is an excellent reason in and of itself to oppose this legislation.