View Full Version : Vote on Carbon Tax in Senate Friday (URGENT)!
KG4JYD
06-05-2008, 11:37 PM
I want to alert you to the expected vote tomorrow (Friday) in the Senate on a new $1.2 trillion carbon tax.
Passage of this tax would have a devastating impact on our economy-- sharply increasing the price of gas (by as much as $1.40 per gallon), raising taxes and creating a new, bloated government bureaucracy.
We just heard that Majority Leader Reid is rushing this bill forward -- ending debate today and forcing a vote Friday.
Contact your Senator and demand a "NO" vote for the Lieberman-Warner Carbon Tax (S. 3036).
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.3036:
N4VGB
06-06-2008, 12:03 AM
Oh boy, the end is near and it can't be blamed on Republicans for a change!!! :D
We in the TN River Valley can surely do well by discontinuing all power production from coal. We'll just cut off a few gigawatts from the Yankees and keep our hydro and nukes running! :D
I want to alert you to the expected vote tomorrow (Friday) in the Senate on a new $1.2 trillion carbon tax.
Passage of this tax would have a devastating impact on our economy-- sharply increasing the price of gas (by as much as $1.40 per gallon), raising taxes and creating a new, bloated government bureaucracy.
We just heard that Majority Leader Reid is rushing this bill forward -- ending debate today and forcing a vote Friday.
Contact your Senator and demand a "NO" vote for the Lieberman-Warner Carbon Tax (S. 3036).
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.3036:
This will trash out the economy for sure. Electric and natural gas costs are expected to rise from 200 to 300 percent. Prices will rise on everything. These people in congress are nothing short of fools.
You can blame this one on the enviro-nuts.
K5BAQ
06-06-2008, 01:41 AM
The Fools; cutting off their noses, to spite their faces. An old quote from one of the two wisest women I ever knew; my Grandmother and my Mother who taught me the quote.
It is going to be a cold long hard winter I fear.
k5baq.
All transmissions made by this call sign originate in Texas or The United States of America.
I think I'll call my senator and tell them to support it.
Thanks for the heads up, Matt!
n2ize
06-06-2008, 03:40 AM
You can blame this one on the enviro-nuts.
No, you can blame it on politicians who couldn't give a damned about you or me or anyone else except themselves and their friends.
kf6rdn
06-06-2008, 03:47 AM
Contact your Senator and demand a "NO" vote for the Lieberman-Warner Carbon Tax (S. 3036).
Yeah sure.. those 2 whackjobs feinstein & boxer probably helped write it..
n2ize
06-06-2008, 03:53 AM
Oh, BTW, I wonder how many people who have commented on this bill thus far have actually read the bill in it's entirety and understand the bill, it's goals, and it's proposed methods for achieving those goals.
N4VGB
06-06-2008, 03:57 AM
Oh, BTW, I wonder how many people who have commented on this bill thus far have actually read the bill in it's entirety and understand the bill, it's goals, and it's proposed methods for achieving those goals.
Unlike John Boy, most of us understand it's about money! :rolleyes:
It is a long read! ;)
KG4JYD
06-06-2008, 04:35 AM
I think I'll call my senator and tell them to support it.
Thanks for the heads up, Matt!Why in the hell would you do that?
N5NPO
06-06-2008, 10:26 AM
Why in the hell would you do that?
Ignorance or agitation, I am not sure. Probably just a troll.
The Republicans have blocked Harry Reids effort to bring the bill up for a vote. But no doubt Reid will try to bring it up again. The Dems have never seen a tax they did not like.
Why in the hell would you do that?
Because I'm not a mindless sheep who will just follow someone who posts a thread and says "Call your senator and tell him to say NO to XYZ" without even looking at the bill?
KD6NIG
06-06-2008, 03:34 PM
Hilarious.
We've had taxes here for years on cars for emissions reasons. They are called "smog checks". But, if you buy a new car, you don't have to smog it for 6 years. However, there is a "Smog Abatement Fee" on your registration for $40 or so for not having to smog.
Maybe its not directly on Carbon, but we've been charged a fee err tax or whatever you want to call it for quite a while.
KG4JYD
06-06-2008, 05:29 PM
Yeah I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where the federal government is allowed to regulate pollution controls. According to the 10th Amendment that should be left up to the States.
KU0DM
06-06-2008, 05:32 PM
Yeah I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where the federal government is allowed to regulate pollution controls. According to the 10th Amendment that should be left up to the States.
Elastic clause...look it up.
What about regulating the internet? Should we just make it a free for all? The Constitution never said anything about space...lets dismantle NASA. The Constitution never said anything about regulating marriages or banning certain marriages, or outlawing abortion!
Matt, if we ran strictly by the constitution word for word, we would be screwed because the founding fathers couldn't put everything in there.
Libertarians...
:rolleyes:
KG4JYD
06-06-2008, 06:20 PM
What about regulating the internet? Should we just make it a free for all? The Internet should be all private property. However it's a weird case because it was originally a D/ARPA project but now much of Net is in the hands of the monopolistic / cartel of the telecoms. Why do the telecoms have a cartel/monopoly? Because the government granted it to them (which by the way is unconstitutional).
So the best thing the federal government can do is to relinquish all control over the Net and remove all exclusive grants of power to the telcoms.
The Constitution never said anything about space...lets dismantle NASA.NASA could be legitimate if it were folded under the DoD.
The Constitution never said anything about regulating marriages or banning certain marriages,You're right! That's why it should be left to the States.
or outlawing abortion! This is a tricky one. Constitutionally, abortion is something to be handled by the States. Why? Because the Constitution doesn't discuss it. HOWEVER, an unborn child is alive, and under the Constitution and DoI all human life is granted certain inalienable rights, specifically life, liberty, pursuit of happiness etc.
Just like the federal government was wrong about slavery, they are wrong about abortion. Black people are alive so they are entitled to all their unalienable rights as humans. Unborn babies are alive so it's the same thing. The Constitution and DoI guarantees these rights to everyone.
Matt, if we ran strictly by the constitution word for word, we would be screwed because the founding fathers couldn't put everything in there. Incorrect. There is an amendment process. And the Constitution still holds functionality now like it did in 1790. But remember, the federal government wasn't designed to do much. Really common defense and currency was mostly the reason why the federal government was created to begin with.
Libertarians...You are confusing libertarianism with Constitutionalism. The two are similar but are NOT one in the same.
W4HAY
06-06-2008, 08:01 PM
Environmentalists are stunned that their global warming agenda is in collapse. Senator Harry Reid has all but conceded he lacks the vote for passage in the Senate and that it's time to move on. Backers of the Warner-Lieberman cap-and-trade bill always knew they would face a veto from President Bush, but they wanted to flex their political muscle and build momentum for 2009. That strategy backfired. The green groups now look as politically intimidating as the skinny kid on the beach who gets sand kicked in his face...
..."This issue is starting to feel like the Hillary health care plan."
It's a good analogy. Originally, Hillary health care had towering levels of support, but once people looked at the cost and complexity they cringed. Jobs were on the mind yesterday of Senator Arlen Specter, who has endorsed a tamer version of cap-and-trade. "Workers in Pennsylvania worry that this will send jobs to China," he tells me. They're smart to worry. Look no further than the failure of the Kyoto countries to live up to their promised emissions cuts. Bjorn Lomborg, the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, tells me: "The Europeans are so far behind schedule, it is almost inconceivable that they will meet their targets."
Environmentalists have always eyed 2009 as the real target year for enactment. But there was no show of strength this week and cap-and-trade may have reached its political high water mark...
Climate-Change Collapse (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121269184525849383.html?mod=opinion_journal_poli tical_diary)
Climate-Change Collapse (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121269184525849383.html?mod=opinion_journal_poli tical_diary)
Great the enviro-nazis took a kick in the teeth. Well deserved.
n2ize
06-06-2008, 08:12 PM
Elastic clause...look it up.
What about regulating the internet? Should we just make it a free for all? The Constitution never said anything about space...lets dismantle NASA. The Constitution never said anything about regulating marriages or banning certain marriages, or outlawing abortion!
Matt, if we ran strictly by the constitution word for word, we would be screwed because the founding fathers couldn't put everything in there.
Libertarians...
:rolleyes:
You are correct which is why we have people who devote years upon years of study in law and specialization in constitutional law.
According to Matt the FAA is unconstitutional and should be abolished and left up to the states. Think about that one next time you fly somewhere and the state you fly out of has one set of flight rules and regulations but the state that you fly into has a completely different set of regulations.
I also find it sort of hypocritical that some ham radio operators talk about ho unconstitutional the federal government is, yet they sign their messages with a set of call letters issued by an "unconstitutional" agency. The first thing they should be doing is getting rid of that call sign and getting on the air without it. If the state you live in has no laws prohibiting transmitting on a frequency then by all means transmit and communicate on it.
n2ize
06-06-2008, 08:17 PM
Because I'm not a mindless sheep who will just follow someone who posts a thread and says "Call your senator and tell him to say NO to XYZ" without even looking at the bill?
Yeah, but the idea of spending a little time reading something is a bit beyond the scope of many. The idea of reading something and thinking about the meaning of what you read is far too much effort for many Americans. They prefer others to do their reading and thinking for them, even if it means remaining uninformed and at a loss.
n2ize
06-06-2008, 08:20 PM
The Internet should be all private property. However it's a weird case because it was originally a D/ARPA project but now much of Net is in the hands of the monopolistic / cartel of the telecoms. Why do the telecoms have a cartel/monopoly? Because the government granted it to them (which by the way is unconstitutional).
So the best thing the federal government can do is to relinquish all control over the Net and remove all exclusive grants of power to the telcoms.
And the big telco's will remain in control of the Internet and instead of it being a communications medium as it is today it will instead become a giant media outlet much like radio and tv.
When there is no longer any regulation you can kiss the Internet as we know it good bye.
n2ize
06-06-2008, 08:21 PM
Why in the hell would you do that?
The smart thing to do would be to first read through the bill, or at least read the major highlights and skim through the rest and thus make an INFORMED decision.
KG4JYD
06-06-2008, 08:26 PM
The smart thing to do would be to first read through the bill, or at least read the major highlights and skim through the rest and thus make an INFORMED decision.I have read through the bill.
KG4JYD
06-06-2008, 08:27 PM
When there is no longer any regulation you can kiss the Internet as we know it good bye.Incorrect. You fail to realize that competition will change that.
If people want an unfiltered network, that's what they'll pay for.
n2ize
06-06-2008, 08:27 PM
Climate-Change Collapse (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121269184525849383.html?mod=opinion_journal_poli tical_diary)
There is no "global warming agenda". Global warming is a product of science. How a nation and it's people respond is an agenda. In the US such agenda may be weak and collapsing. In other parts of the world research is taken more seriously as a result of people being better educated and informed.
The Internet should be all private property. However it's a weird case because it was originally a D/ARPA project but now much of Net is in the hands of the monopolistic / cartel of the telecoms. Why do the telecoms have a cartel/monopoly? Because the government granted it to them (which by the way is unconstitutional).
The idea that control of the internet is given to the telcos because of some giant Government conspiracy is completely asinine.
Matt, if you don't like Government control of the internet, you are free to set up your own worldwide computer network. Really, you are, and in fact many companies do it on a smaller scale.
n2ize
06-06-2008, 08:34 PM
Incorrect. You fail to realize that competition will change that.
If people want an unfiltered network, that's what they'll pay for.
If you really believe that then you are very very naive. Back when I was in high school there were some people that believed that we could make a world of peacen where there is no more wars, violence, greed., etc. While those were noble thoughts and good goals to strive and struggle for it was naive to imagine that they would happen anytime soon.
To bring more competition into the playing field is a good idea and worthy of striving for, I would like to have a larger choice of whom to buy service from. However, simply deregulating the internet is not going to make that a reality. If anything it's going to have the opposite effect.
Like I said, life all regulations today and kiss it goodbye tomorrow.
Incorrect. You fail to realize that competition will change that.
If people want an unfiltered network, that's what they'll pay for.
If people want an unfiltered network they can set up their own. All they are limited is by how much money they are willing to spend.
N4VGB
06-06-2008, 08:34 PM
I have read through the bill.
Check out the amendments and funding also, not in the wording of the bill itself! :eek: Around $1 trillion funding in the first 10 years! :eek: Of course the U.S. Government has a long and successful history of 'bringing in' projects at or under the initial estimate of costs! ;)
National Debt!!! We ain't broke, mo money, mo money, mo money! :D
n2ize
06-06-2008, 08:36 PM
I have read through the bill.
That is good. That is what everyone should do. At least you are basing your decision on it's contents. More people should do that.
N4VGB
06-07-2008, 05:33 AM
Hmmmm, looks like filibuster for this one? :rolleyes:
W4HAY
06-09-2008, 02:03 PM
For months, Democrats and the environmental lobby promoted last week's Senate global-warming debate as a political watershed. It was going to be the historic turning point in U.S. climate change policy. In the event, their bill collapsed in a little more than three days...
...Until last week, the Democratic M.O. on climate change was to lash the Bush Administration for its supposed inaction and then pass responsibility onto regulators and the courts. Proponents thought they had the whip hand. Yet this time they had to defend an actual piece of legislation – and once it was subjected to even preliminary scrutiny, the Democrats crumpled faster than you can say $4 gas...
...After Mr. Corker called the bill "the mother of all earmarks" and "a huge unnecessary transference of wealth," Ms. Boxer was reduced to arguing that it's really "a huge tax cut for the American people" and "will not increase gas prices." These are delusions, or worse. Cap and trade is designed to raise energy prices, which are supposed to spur the investments and behavior changes needed for a less carbon-intensive economy...
...Even Barack Obama and John McCain backed away from a bill they claim to favor. Mr. McCain said he opposed it because it didn't do enough for nuclear power, while Mr. Obama blamed the failure on Republicans. But the word on Capitol Hill is that both Presidential candidates urged Mr. Reid to yank the bill, lest they get trapped into voting for higher energy prices...
...perhaps President Bush's approach to climate change – voluntary reductions and subsidies for alternative technology – will seem a lot more realistic once the partisan fevers of the moment have passed...
CAP AND BURN (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121296724450055721.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks)
N4VGB
06-09-2008, 03:29 PM
Glad to see that Mr. Corker may have finally learned the folly of his former ways! As a local mayor, he was never one to shy from grabbing every piece of pork made available to him from the feds. I guess the view from inside the butcher shop and him now being responsible for carving and distributing the one hog available for all to consume has sharpened his senses. :rolleyes:;)
This bill suffered from nothing more than poor timing, 15-30 years ago it would have been an easy piece to support. It would do more damage than good at this point. :(
KG4JYD
06-09-2008, 11:18 PM
Glad to see that Mr. Corker may have finally learned the folly of his former ways! As a local mayor, he was never one to shy from grabbing every piece of pork made available to him from the feds.
Do you know Mr. Dumas from down your way?
N4VGB
06-10-2008, 01:58 AM
Do you know Mr. Dumas from down your way?
Nope, but I've heard of the family name and there is one city in TN by that name. I do not believe that I have ever met a member of the Dumas family personally. :)
KG4JYD
06-10-2008, 04:39 AM
Nope, but I've heard of the family name and there is one city in TN by that name. I do not believe that I have ever met a member of the Dumas family personally. :)Check him out: http://www.joedumas.com/
N4VGB
06-10-2008, 05:25 AM
Check him out: http://www.joedumas.com/
Oops, I may have told a very unintentional lie about having never met Mr. Dumas. My now deceased son was once an EE student at UTC and I actually may have met him, sorry 'bout that. His picture looks very familiar, although this could be from just seeing him around the campus and engineering buildings.
Although I'm not in or near District 2, still interested in all local government. The school board here is better than in the past but still not the most sterling group of characters, in my opinion. As Mr. Dumas points out on his website, the student per capita spending level here should be producing much better results.
I better not start thinking too much about the "adminstrative" branch of our local school system. Their lavish salaries and facilities give me severe headaches and stomach problems! ;)
W4HAY
06-10-2008, 01:44 PM
When oil hit $40 and then $70, this column was serene. With a couple billion Chinese, Indians and others joining the global marketplace, they will need energy, and lots of it. The price mechanism is our only hope.
Sure enough, it's working. Money is pouring into Canada's massive tar sands. A thousand substitutions are taking place on the demand side. Sales of SUVs are falling; sales of four-cylinder sedans are up. The number of miles driven by American motorists shrank in February for the first time in 26 years...
...Yet there's one miracle of adaptation that even $135 oil apparently can't vouchsafe. It can't bring intellectual coherence to American rhetoric or policy on energy...
...But the biggest fools today may be those greenies who are clapping their hands over $135 oil as if this somehow represents the beginning of the end of fossil fuels. High prices are not the equivalent of carbon taxes – they will have the opposite effect in the long run, spurring investment and technological progress to bring vast new resources of fossil energy into production. For instance, turning coal, oil sands and oil shale into motor fuels, which is cost-effective at half of today's oil price, means massive additional releases of CO2. It's the worst nightmare of the climate worrywarts...
...Voters and their representatives then could at least contemplate supporting a climate policy on cost-benefit grounds, rather than on the religious posturing that Al Gore and others adopt to push what they can't sell rationally. Will the greens learn these lessons? Not likely – which is why $135 oil may prove the beginning of the end of any political movement to do anything about climate change.
The Coming Oil Investment Boom (http://online.wsj.com/article/business_world.html)
kb2vxa
06-10-2008, 05:49 PM
"We in the TN River Valley can surely do well by discontinuing all power production from coal. We'll just cut off a few gigawatts from the Yankees and keep our hydro and nukes running!"
That sure would help alleviate the summer haze; that choking stinking mess that rides the Bermuda high blotting out the sun and sending us to hospitals suffering from respiratory distress. Thank the TVA for me but you can send the coal to China and BTW we have a couple of nukes in NJ too, one generated and sent this message to you.
Yeah and thanks again for that sludge you see over Barnegat Bay in the photo.
N4VGB
06-10-2008, 07:12 PM
That sure would help alleviate the summer haze; that choking stinking mess that rides the Bermuda high blotting out the sun and sending us to hospitals suffering from respiratory distress. Thank the TVA for me but you can send the coal to China and BTW we have a couple of nukes in NJ too, one generated and sent this message to you.
Yeah and thanks again for that sludge you see over Barnegat Bay in the photo.
We built the nukes here to replace the coal fired plants. Unfortunately by the time the nukes were up and running a jump in demand from outside the TN River valley caused them to be upgraded and kept online. Plus that little freeze on completing any new nukes which caused several already under construction to be abandoned or left in a maintenence state. We have several units that are actually physically complete but permission to load fuel was denied. Go figger?
Several other utilities in the South still belch that yellow sulphur smoke from their coal fired plants, I don't really have any insight into exactly how they get around the current emission regulations. I would presume it is from pure necessity? No funds to upgrade and leave millions in the dark? I dunno?
We do indeed export our soft high sulphur content TN coal to first Japan and now China. It has amused me for many years watching both our coal and our large scrap metal businesses load their wares onto massive barges for the trip down river and eventual delivery to both Japan and China. Something strick you as wrong in this picture? All for the purpose of producing a finished product that is sold back to America!?
I think that you had better look closer to home for the source of your sludge.
W4HAY
06-11-2008, 12:49 AM
Two years ago a Time magazine's cover warned us about global warming: "Be Worried . . . Be Very Worried." We should be even more worried about the supposed global warming legislation the U.S. Senate debated last week, then rejected without a vote. It would have replaced markets with government controls over the economy and Americans' personal lives. So different would be a Boxer-Lieberman-Warner America, and so likely it is that the same legislation will be back in Congress next year, that it is worth thinking through what it would do and how it would affect us...
...The core of the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner legislation is that an expanded government, not the market economy, must control our society. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has produced a chart... ...showing that the bill "contains over 300 regulations and mandates," each of which must go through a federal regulatory process.
The bill does focus on some global warming objectives--although it is an America-only program estimated to lower global CO2 emissions only by about 1.4%--but it is less about that and more a step towards traditional socialism. The government would take control of our economy and regulate everything from electricity, oil and gas to imported shoes, our food, how high we may set our thermostats, and what kinds of light bulbs we may use. The EPA and the Energy Information Agency predict such controls would reduce GDP by "as much as seven percent (over $2.8 trillion) by 2050 and reduce U.S. manufacturing output by almost 10 percent by 2030."
Add to that the fact that Barack Obama and John McCain both support the bill, and that the next Congress is likely to have bigger Democratic majorities, and one can see in the next administration where a very collectivist America will be headed.
The Big Chill (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121296591703855687.html?mod=opinion_journal_poli tical_diary)
N1LAF
06-11-2008, 01:37 AM
According to Matt the FAA is unconstitutional and should be abolished and left up to the states. Think about that one next time you fly somewhere and the state you fly out of has one set of flight rules and regulations but the state that you fly into has a completely different set of regulations.
But since these flights cross state lines, it becomes interstate commerce, then the Feds get it.
KG4JYD
06-11-2008, 02:15 AM
But since these flights cross state lines, it becomes interstate commerce, then the Feds get it.
Incorrect again. As it was written travel does not = commerce necessarily. When you begin to look at the historical reasons for the Constitution and interstate commerce clause it should all becomes clear.
The States were in debt, had trade wars, tarrifs, and currency problems. The federal government was supposed to stop all of these things. When the Constitution was constructed "To regulate" actually meant 'to make regular'.
Thus, the federal government is to make trade regular among the several States. In other words, as an example, Alabama is not allowed to boycott or add a tariff to any imports from Mississippi.
W4HAY
06-11-2008, 12:20 PM
Energy: America was saved Tuesday from a Democratic Congress determined to do more damage to our economy and raise oil prices still higher. Energy taxes and eco-extremism make Democrats the real oil gougers...
... The most absurd provision in the thoroughly ridiculous energy package offered by Senate Democrats this week was to make price gouging on oil and gas a federal crime, punishable by a fine of $5 million if an energy emergency has been declared by the president at the time of such price fixing...
...What, unfortunately, is not illegal is Congress' ability to gouge motorists and natural gas and heating oil cosumers by preventing us from extracting more of our own oil and gas...
...Our enemies see that the party that may gain control of the presidency in November can't even remember how windfall profit taxes under Jimmy Carter over a quarter-century ago devastated our economy by depressing domestic output and boosting imports.
...Killing the geese that provide our economy with black gold is no answer to high energy prices. Developing more of our own energy is vital not just for relief at the pump, but for our national security in the global war on terror. At least one party in Congress gets it.
The Gouge Party (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=297990974123443)
*****
Saved by Senate Republicans, big oil companies dodged an attempt Tuesday to slap them with a windfall profits tax and take away billions of dollars in tax breaks in response to the record gasoline prices that have the nation fuming...
..."In the middle of what some are calling the biggest energy shock in a generation ... they proposed as a solution, of all things, a windfall profits tax," Republican leader Mitch McDonnell of Kentucky chided the Democrats. He called their proposal "a gimmick" that would not lower gasoline prices and only hold back domestic oil production.
"The American people are clamoring for relief at the pump," agreed Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., but "they will get exactly what they don't want" under the Democrats' plan -- higher prices and an increase in oil imports...
Listen to the leftists whine! (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,364846,00.html)
N1LAF
06-11-2008, 07:06 PM
Incorrect again. As it was written travel does not = commerce necessarily. When you begin to look at the historical reasons for the Constitution and interstate commerce clause it should all becomes clear.
The States were in debt, had trade wars, tarrifs, and currency problems. The federal government was supposed to stop all of these things. When the Constitution was constructed "To regulate" actually meant 'to make regular'.
Thus, the federal government is to make trade regular among the several States. In other words, as an example, Alabama is not allowed to boycott or add a tariff to any imports from Mississippi.
I'll Rephrase
But since these flights, which tickets have been purchased for the sole reason to travel that results in crossing state lines, it becomes interstate commerce, then the Feds get it.
Is that better?