| FAQ |
| Calendar |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#21
04-23-2009, 08:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Unbelieveable. That will almost stop all new small businesses. Only the large, super-rich corporations will be able to afford this. And you know, I really think that is the plan.
I used to go on YouTube and watch the conspiracy videos. At first you think they are extreme wackos. But perhaps they are right. Listen to what Dick Morris said on the Sean Hannity show concerning all these regulations. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW5Jv-TRXh0 Say what you will about Dick Morris, he is very savvy and knows what's going on in the world. |
|
#22
04-24-2009, 06:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yeah Dick Morris is always two steps ahead of the media...
Americans are getting what they voted for, a socialist in the White House... and this is only the beginning! 
|
|
#23
06-27-2009, 01:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Folks, while the world was distracted over Michael Jackson,
our economy may have just been officially flushed down the toilet... this is going to impact the bottom line for every American business and family budget on this forum for many, many years...  Betrayed by Congress with the Cap-and-Trade Bill Saturday, June 27, 2009 By Alan Caruba Mark it on your calendar, June 26, 2009 was the date that the House of Representatives betrayed every American in the name of saving the nation and the Earth from global warming. It was the day that 219 Representative voted for the obscenely misnamed "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009" Only eight Republican members of the House voted for it and 44 Democrats voted against it. The bill, some 1,200 pages, was NOT READ by those men and women voting on it because they were NOT PERMITTED the time to do or have their staffs do it. The co-author of the bill, Rep. Henry Waxman, admitted that even he did not know its full contents. The vote was not based on science, on economics, or simple common sense. It was an exercise in raw political power exercised by the Speaker of the House and her minions. The bill puts limits on the generation of "greenhouse gases", primarily carbon dioxide, setting up an elaborate scheme for the sale and trade of so-called carbon credits that will ultimately be the equivalent of the bundled housing mortgage securities that produced the present threat to the nation's financial system. It is a get-rich scheme that will benefit a few while penalizing every American with higher costs for electricity. The limits are justified by the claim that the Earth is dramatically warming due to too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The Earth has been cooling for the last ten years and is predicted to continue cooling for thirty years or more. Carbon dioxide plays no role in the warming or cooling of the Earth. The bill is a direct attack on the nation's coal industry. Fifty percent of all the electricity generated nationwide comes from coal-fired plants. The U.S. has deposits of coal sufficient to meet the nation's needs for hundreds of years. It is cheap and it is abundant. No new coal-fired plants will be built in America in the foreseeable future. Coal that is not utilized here will be exported to China, a nation that is building new coal-fired plants and opening them on a weekly basis to meet its need for power. The bill also allocates billions for the development of the two worst, most inefficient and unpredictable sources of electricity, wind and solar energy. Presently, these represent barely one percent of all the electricity generated in the nation. There is no way, nor should they be, they can replace coal, natural gas, and nuclear energy as a source of electricity. They are also the alleged source of "green" jobs. As for "security", a nation that cannot access its own sources of energy, coal, oil and natural gas, has no security if it must import them from other nations, some of whom are hostile to our values and system of government. The bill puts our fate in the hands of nations that support the goals of Islamic global domination. It puts the nation at the mercy of men like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and explains why President Obama made a deep bow to a Saudi prince earlier this year. The bill must now go to the Senate where it is hoped that the upper body, though controlled by Democrats, will ensure it does not move on to the desk of the President. If it passes in the Senate, the beginning of the actual decline of America as a great economy will be dated June 26, 2009. Without abundant power, electricity for our homes, offices and factories; without gasoline for our cars and trucks, America will become a failed nation. http://www.expertclick.com/NewsRelea...200927560.aspx Last edited by Bro. Parrish; 06-27-2009 at 01:45 PM. |
|
#24
06-27-2009, 01:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
June 26, 2009
The Economic Impact of the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade Bill Testimony before the Senate Republican Conference June 22, 2009 My name is Ben Lieberman, and I am the Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are my own, and should not be construed as representing any official position of The Heritage Foundation. I would like to thank the Senate Republican Conference for extending me the privilege of participating in today's hearing. I'll be discussing the costs of the cap-and-trade approach to addressing global warming and The Heritage Foundation's economic analysis of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (Waxman-Markey). As you know, the House is currently considering this bill, which is similar to but has more stringent targets and timetables than the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill that was rejected by the Senate last June. It is clear that cap-and-trade is very expensive and amounts to nothing more than an energy tax in disguise. After all, when you sweep aside all the complexities of how cap and trade operates--and make no mistake, this is the most convoluted attempt at economic central planning this nation has ever attempted--the bottom line is that cap and trade works by raising the cost of energy high enough so that individuals and businesses are forced to use less of it. Inflicting economic pain is what this is all about. That is how the ever-tightening emissions targets will be met. The only entities directly regulated by Waxman-Markey would be the electric utilities, oil refiners, natural gas producers, and some manufacturers that produce energy on site. So, the good news for the rest of us--homeowners, car owners, small-business owners, farmers--is that we won't be directly regulated under this bill. The bad news is that nearly all the costs will get passed on to us anyway. What are those costs? According to the analysis we conducted at The Heritage Foundation, which is attached to my written statement, the higher energy costs kick in as soon as the bill's provisions take effect in 2012. For a household of four, energy costs go up $436 that year, and they eventually reach $1,241 in 2035 and average $829 annually over that span. Electricity costs go up 90 percent by 2035, gasoline by 58 percent, and natural gas by 55 percent by 2035. The cumulative higher energy costs for a family of four by then will be nearly $20,000. But direct energy costs are only part of the consumer impact. Nearly everything goes up, since higher energy costs raise production costs. If you look at the total cost of Waxman-Markey, it works out to an average of $2,979 annually from 2012-2035 for a household of four. By 2035 alone, the total cost is over $4,600. Beyond the cost impact on individuals and households, Waxman-Markey also affects employment, and especially employment in the manufacturing sector. We estimate job losses averaging 1,145,000 at any given time from 2012-2035. And note that those are net job losses, after the much-hyped green jobs are taken into account. Some of the lost jobs will be destroyed entirely, while others will be outsourced to nations like China and India that have repeatedly stated that they'll never hamper their own economic growth with energy-cost boosting global warming measures like Waxman-Markey. Since farming is energy intensive, that sector will be particularly hard-hit. Higher gasoline and diesel fuel costs, higher electricity costs, and higher natural gas-derived fertilizer costs all erode farm profits, which are expected to drop by 28 percent in 2012 and average 57 percent lower through 2035. As with American manufacturers, Waxman-Markey also puts American farmers at a global disadvantage, as other food-exporting nations would have no comparable energy-price raising measures in place. Overall, Waxman-Markey reduces gross domestic product by an average of $393 billion annually between 2012 and 2035, and cumulatively by $9.4 trillion. In other words, the nation will be $9.4 trillion poorer with Waxman-Markey than without it. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Ene...tst062609a.cfm |
|
#25
06-27-2009, 06:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
In the 1970's, I remember when they were predicting a new "Ice Age" was coming upon us. I remember how scared people were. And how they were all talking about "that's how the dinosaurs died..." and I was imagining freezing to death, in a very unpleasant (and painful!) manner. I guess now it's the opposite. Today I'm not so gullible as I was back then. It wasn't true then and it isn't true now.
Scare tactics have always been a very effective method of bringing the masses into a new line of thinking that benefits certain categories of people. Scientists love the grant money and so they'll doctor data or misrepresent the data by either alluding to something that is not supported by the data, or conveniently leaving out part of the data, while focusing on one minor point and making it all-important. Our earth goes through cycles of warm and cold over centuries. It's certainly not feeling any WARMER in the winters of Wisconsin!! We've had some record snowfalls the last couple of years, including a major blizzard last year. I remember reading, about a year ago, an article that showed that there is ANOTHER side to this global-warming issue. If you want to get grant money, you'll toe the line and give the public what they want them to hear. The article referenced some type of professional letter that had been signed by MANY prominent scientists, debunking the myth of global warming and telling people that the media only prints what they want us to see. Brother Forrest, next winter, send some WARMTH to Wisconsin. 40 or 50 feels downright balmy in a Wisconsin winter!! Jassy |
|
#26
06-27-2009, 07:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 OOPS, looks like my original link was broken, here you go: http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php http://www.petitionproject.org/purpose_of_petition.php http://www.petitionproject.org/quali...of_signers.php |
|
#27
06-27-2009, 10:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Jassy |
|
#28
06-28-2009, 10:16 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Jen Last edited by greenbear; 06-28-2009 at 10:31 AM. |
|
#29
06-28-2009, 06:52 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Jassy |
|
#30
07-08-2009, 05:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Liberal Senator BUSTED on Climate Change nonsense...
July 08, 2009 Imagining a crisis Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) at yesterday's Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, as he cited the Global Climate Change Impacts in the U.S./SW region report: "...Human induced climate change appears to be well underway in the southwest. Recent warming in the Southwest has been among the most rapid in the nation. This is driving declines in spring snowpack and Colorado River flow.... According to climate scientists, if we fail to reduce global warming, vast area of the United States will likely face severe water shortages...." Prompted by memories of my sister describing massive rain accumulation in the Carlsbad NM area a few years ago, I went a-digging.... http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/..._a_crisis.html |
|
|
Linear Mode
