Is anyone happy with the cap and trade bill?

If so please explain why, because I, for one, am not.

__________________
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” --Thomas Jefferson

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
Thomas Jefferson

Yes.

Could you please explain why?

__________________
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” --Thomas Jefferson

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
Thomas Jefferson

No, I can't.

Thanks for being honest, I can respect that.

__________________
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” --Thomas Jefferson

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
Thomas Jefferson

Well based on the multiple post on the subject Citizen that I have been invovled in here, I can assure my answer is a firm no , on this disaster of a bill. First of all let's set aside the fact this bill will raise the cost of goods, and services on everyone, and as President Obama has said, ;

"Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Businesses would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that cost onto consumers."
Barack Obama

I happen to agree with that, let's set all that aside for a moment, the basic principle of the bill is to set up a method of capping carbon and trading for credits so that those industries deemed not eco friendly will reduce CO2 emissions in an effor to reduce Global Warming. Well let's set aside for a moment the EPA has suppressed data stating that CO2 does not cause "Global Warming"

into the Environmental Protection Agency's alleged suppression of a report that questioned the science behind global warming.

The 98-page report, co-authored by EPA analyst Alan Carlin, pushed back on the prospect of regulating gases like carbon dioxide as a way to reduce global warming. Carlin's report argued that the information the EPA was using was out of date, and that even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased, global temperatures have declined.

Let's set all that aside, the aim of the bill is to reduce CO2, well if that is the goal, it takes into account that EVERY single country that produces CO2 follows this same self imposed plan and that includes the worlds largest producers of CO2 China, and Indian who have indicated that they have no intentions of following such a plan. In fact both counties are producing coal fired plants at a rate of one a week. So even if implemented the goals of this bill are completely shot from the day it is signed, and it becomes a massive tax on every single American to enrich enviro-business on as yet unproven science. The IPCC report(s) that all this "Global Warming" marketing scheme is based on is taken to be the gospel truth by many however that is not the case in the scientific community and the findings within the report are disputed by literally tens of thousands of scientists worldwide. If this nation wanted an energy policy to end its' dependance on foreign sources of energy , then this nation should concentrate it's efforts in promoting technologies that and the construction of those technologies that do just that , like wind, solar, nuclear, bio-mass, natural gas, and yes domestic oil. All of these can be done in a safe and environmentally friendly manner and are currently done the world over. So yes this bill is complete nonsense, it's set up to enrich enviro-business and is based on unproven science and the ultimate inslut of it is the American people will pay for it all in a time when they cannot afford it.

__________________
God grant me the courage not to give up what I think is right even though I think it is hopeless.
Chester W. Nimitz

If you wouldn't have asked for an explanation you probably would have gotten more Obama bots that said yes but sense you want an explanation you won't get any responses...

The only people that like it are the liberals in Congress... No one else in the country wants it.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. "

If you believe that, then you should believe that future generations have, at the very least, the same inalienable right to "life" as the present generation does.
So yes, I do.
As a policy instrument, ACES ably addresses a wide range of concerns with the appropriate government departments while withdrawing us from the tipping point that would make life on earth uninhabitable for future generations. These actions should have been achieved in (and because of the lessons of) the seventies. If they were, the US wouldn't be sucking hind tit to other countries regarding new technologies in renewable energy. We can still be a leader in innovation, and if this passes, we will reap the rewards and bestow the "Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." More often than not the right thing to do is profitable. It might take a minute longer than to rape and pillage, but the rewards are longer lasting.

__________________
"What stops a man who can laugh from telling the truth?" - Horace.

It's bullshit. Just more government control over flawed science ... even environmental scientific communities are saying it's a bad idea ... just sayin'.

__________________
If you can dream it, I can code it.
Every hand's a winner, and every hands a loser, the best you could hope for is to die in your sleep.

You haven't read it either, eh?

It is a bit like a lightening rod to ground citizen anger. Ever since last September, we have been getting bills that are rammed through with little or discussion, and the discussion permitted seems derisory. They are are making fun of us, the great unwashed.

I don't believe they have the votes to pass it in the senate, and the anger level in the country is such that the senators may be getting the message.


So I think it is good in that it might bring around a huge amount of term limiting by the voters in 14 months. In that regard, it is almost a good thing as the house bank. And for the same reasons.

If the Republicans were smart, which I doubt, they would come up with a new contract. The old one was quite popular.

They got rid of the house bank, they put the house under the same wage and hour rules,

I think a contract with America that said No bills passed withut a minimum of 24 hours of time to debate, no more placeholders, no more earmarks (and mean it) They might have some success again.

But they blew it last time. I doubt they will get a new chance soon. We will just see a whole new bunch of Democrat faces in two years.

__________________
Ally of Justice
Addoration for Great and Dear Leader 0bama
連邦政府軍のご協力により、君達の基地は、全てCATSがいただいた。

Democrat congressman, Alan Grayson of Florida will be happy. After all to get him to vote for this bill he was promised 50 MILLION dollars for a new hurricane center in Florida.

And I imagine any other politician that was paid off should be fairly happy too. Other than those people, I really can't think of anyone else?

Moving toward clean energy is a good idea.

Pretty simple really.

I love all the Republican whinning, however. They loved it when the oil men were in the White House and gas was $4.50 a gallon.

price of gasoline had nothing to do with who was in the white house, numbnuts.

You do realize that most of the scientists you have your lips firmly attached to don't support it ....

... as well as enough Democrats in the House to almost stop this idiotic bill ...

... of course you know this already, right?

__________________
If you can dream it, I can code it.
Every hand's a winner, and every hands a loser, the best you could hope for is to die in your sleep.