Obama's cap & trade policy--est. $2000 more per year per household in electric costs!

[RetiredGySgt]

Translation: "I can't show they are earmarks so I'm talking out my ass."

You can't show they are earmarks. I know, because they weren't.

A monorail from Disneyland to Vegas? That is what's known as an earmark for Reid. He wanted it long ago, but was just too expensive...back then.

The best source you can come up with to prove these were earmarks is your own say-so?

Once again you make a false claim, it is simple, you claim that the monorail meets the criteria established for the "STIMULUS" bill, Prove a project that will take YEARS to build and only benefits one city is going to STIMULATE the CURRENT economy.

 

[editec]

FYI:

America's Climate Security Act of 2007: chief sponsors, Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA).

Cap-and-trade

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The proposal -- frequently referred to as a cap-and-trade plan -- would establish an emissions trading system that would permit companies that emit fewer greenhouse gases than they are allowed to sell the excess portion to companies that exceed their allowances. The Act's sponsors estimate the bill would reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by up to 63% by 2050. The initial limits between the years 2005 and 2012 would cap emissions at 5,200 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent to estimated levels during 2005. Between 2012 and 2020, emissions would be further reduced two percent per year, resulting in a 15% reduction below 2005 levels.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Lieberman-Warner would establish: [/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1](1) A domestic offset program, allowing regulated facilities to meet up to 15% of their compliance obligation in any given year with allowances generated through domestic offset projects certified by the EPA. They could meet their emissions limits, provided they receive approval from the EPA, by purchasing credits on the international emission trading market or by borrowing from credits they would normally receive in future years.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1](2) The Bonus Allowance Account, established using 4 percent of all emission allowances for calendar years 2012 through 2035, that would be used to reward firms that sequester their carbon emissions in geological formations.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1](3) The Carbon Market Efficiency Board to monitor and report on the national GHG emission market.[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Within the Treasury Department, it would establish:[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1](4) The Energy Assistance Fund to provide funds to the low-income home energy assistance program and to the rural energy assistance program;[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1](5) The Climate Change Worker Training Fund to provide job training to any workers displaced by this Act and assistance to workers in need of training or re-training;[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1](6) The Adaptation Fund to help various fish, wildlife, plants and associated ecological resources in adapting to and surviving the effects of climate change; [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1](7) The Climate Change and National Security Council to submit annual reports to the President, Senate and House of Representatives the extent to which other countries are reducing greenhouse emissions through mandatory programs; the threat of climate change to sensitive populations, national resources and political stability; and potentially destabilizing impacts of climate change on national security;[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1](8) The Climate Change Credit Corporation to auction emission allowances.[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]

International Reserve Allowance Program
[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Act would require the President to establish an interagency group to determine whether foreign countries have addressed GHG reduction. Before being allowed to trade, any U.S. importer of covered goods must submit approved international allowances. With a few exceptions, failure to make a CO2 emissions declaration (in writing to the administrator of U.S. Customs and Border Protection) for each import would result in the import being barred from entry.[/SIZE][/FONT]​

source


Looks to me like, if anything, this is a bill seeking to SAVE the coal industry, more than kill it.

Will it drive up the cost of coal fired electic?

Damned right it will.

But I found THIS most interesting, too

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Act would require the President to establish an interagency group to determine whether foreign countries have addressed GHG reduction. Before being allowed to trade, any U.S. importer of covered goods must submit approved international allowances. With a few exceptions, failure to make a CO2 emissions declaration (in writing to the administrator of U.S. Customs and Border Protection) for each import would result in the import being barred from entry.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[/SIZE][/FONT]

I failing to understand why you people see this as OBAMA's bill or some kind of environmentalists dream bill.

First of all, look who sponsored it.

Do you really think a Senator from WEST VIRGINIA would screw the coal industry?

Secondly, this actually allow the coal industry to contine polluting by giving them some way (a way which I doubt will matter) to offset their pollution impact.

Why are you people thinking this is a LIBERAL or ENVIRONMENTALISTS bill?

This is a BILL that mostly benefits the COAL and ELLECTRIC INDUSTRIES.



​

 

[Iriemon]

So far we have three people claiming there were eamarks in the stimulus bill, and not one can provide a cite to reliable source to show it.

 

[editec]

So far we have three people claiming there were eamarks in the stimulus bill, and not one can provide a cite to reliable source to show it.

There were plenty of earmarks.

The question is are they porky earmarks are not?

 

[Meister]

Translation: "I can't show they are earmarks so I'm talking out my ass."

You can't show they are earmarks. I know, because they weren't.

A monorail from Disneyland to Vegas? That is what's known as an earmark for Reid. He wanted it long ago, but was just too expensive...back then.

The best source you can come up with to prove these were earmarks is your own say-so?

Finding the Pork in the Obama Stimulus Bill - US News and World Report
PolitiFact | Stimulus bill includes projects that some consider earmarks
In stimulus bills, earmarks by any other name - Capitol Hill- msnbc.com

Like I said, you just didn't want to look for the evidence. It was there all the time, and you choose not to read.

 

[Iriemon]

So far we have three people claiming there were eamarks in the stimulus bill, and not one can provide a cite to reliable source to show it.

There were plenty of earmarks.

The question is are they porky earmarks are not?

Four.

Still not one cite reliable source that says there were earmarks in the stimulus bill.

 

[Newby]

I wouldn't waste your time with Iriemon, he/she is a partisan and will argue the Obama slant regardless of what you show him/her. There's isn't any intellectual honesty there at all.

 

[Iriemon]

A monorail from Disneyland to Vegas? That is what's known as an earmark for Reid. He wanted it long ago, but was just too expensive...back then.

The best source you can come up with to prove these were earmarks is your own say-so?

Finding the Pork in the Obama Stimulus Bill - US News and World Report
PolitiFact | Stimulus bill includes projects that some consider earmarks
In stimulus bills, earmarks by any other name - Capitol Hill- msnbc.com

Like I said, you just didn't want to look for the evidence. It was there all the time, and you choose not to read.

From your source: In theory and publicity, the package is “earmark free.”

But I'll agre if you use a broader meaning of "earmark" to mean the inclusion of what one thinks is "pork," then there were earmarks.

 

[Iriemon]

I wouldn't waste your time with Iriemon, he/she is a partisan and will argue the Obama slant regardless of what you show him/her. There's isn't any intellectual honesty there at all.

Demostrably false assertion. But the kind of immature response you get from some whose nose gets out of joint when they've been proved wrong in a debate, particlulary when they've really embarrassed themselves by calling me stupid about a point they are then undeniably proved completely wrong about.

Or did you want to again take a shot at proving that Obama has tripled spending?

 

[Newby]

I wouldn't waste your time with Iriemon, he/she is a partisan and will argue the Obama slant regardless of what you show him/her. There's isn't any intellectual honesty there at all.

Demostrably false assertion. But the kind of immature response you get from some whose nose gets out of joint when they've been proved wrong in a debate.

You've never proven anyone wrong from anything I've seen on here. Numerous people have confronted you over your falsehoods however, and you just cluelessly plow ahead as if they hadn't said anything, or ignore them. The fact that you continue to defend Obama's spending and projected deficit will cancel any credibility of any argument that you try to make.

 

[Newby]

The best source you can come up with to prove these were earmarks is your own say-so?

Finding the Pork in the Obama Stimulus Bill - US News and World Report
PolitiFact | Stimulus bill includes projects that some consider earmarks
In stimulus bills, earmarks by any other name - Capitol Hill- msnbc.com

Like I said, you just didn't want to look for the evidence. It was there all the time, and you choose not to read.

From your source: In theory and publicity, the package is “earmark free.”

But I'll agre if you use a broader meaning of "earmark" to mean the inclusion of what one thinks is "pork," then there were earmarks.

This is a prime example. To naively continue to say that there wasn't wasteful spending in that bill and defend it using intellectually dishonest means shows that you do not care about the actual wrongs that are taking place in our government, all you care about is that 'your side' of the political aisle is 'right', and you'll do anything to defend them.

 

[Iriemon]

I wouldn't waste your time with Iriemon, he/she is a partisan and will argue the Obama slant regardless of what you show him/her. There's isn't any intellectual honesty there at all.

Demostrably false assertion. But the kind of immature response you get from some whose nose gets out of joint when they've been proved wrong in a debate.

You've never proven anyone wrong from anything I've seen on here.

I will back up my assertion and cite the thread in which Newby asserted multiple times that spending had tripled under Obama and called me stupid for challenging him on it and then proving him completely wrong, if anyone is interested.

Numerous people have confronted you over your falsehoods however, and you just cluelessly plow ahead as if they hadn't said anything, or ignore them.

Sure, lots of people yap about faleshoods and the like when proven wrong. You were one of them.

The fact that you continue to defend Obama's spending and projected deficit will cancel any credibility of any argument that you try to make.

Another misleading accusation. I have defended the deficit for this year to avoid economic collapse. I have never defended projecte deficits beyond the point the economy gets back on its feet. Quite the contrary.

 

[Iriemon]

Finding the Pork in the Obama Stimulus Bill - US News and World Report
PolitiFact | Stimulus bill includes projects that some consider earmarks
In stimulus bills, earmarks by any other name - Capitol Hill- msnbc.com

Like I said, you just didn't want to look for the evidence. It was there all the time, and you choose not to read.

From your source: In theory and publicity, the package is “earmark free.”

But I'll agre if you use a broader meaning of "earmark" to mean the inclusion of what one thinks is "pork," then there were earmarks.

This is a prime example. To naively continue to say that there wasn't wasteful spending in that bill

This *is* a prime example. Of your fabrication and falsehood. Prove otherwise by citing my post where I ever said "there wasn't wasteful spending in that bill".

Or ignore and be proved a liar and hypocrite by your own terms.

 

[Newby]

Your posts and other's reactions to them speak for themselves. Intellectual dishonesty obviously makes you a legend in your own mind, but no one elses.

 

[Meister]

From your source: In theory and publicity, the package is “earmark free.”

But I'll agre if you use a broader meaning of "earmark" to mean the inclusion of what one thinks is "pork," then there were earmarks.

This is a prime example. To naively continue to say that there wasn't wasteful spending in that bill

This is a prime example. Of your fabrication and falsehood. Prove otherwise by citing my post where I ever said "there wasn't wasteful spending in that bill".

Or ignore and be proved a liar and hypocrite by your own terms.

Now we're getting down to the crux of this whole thread. We have to define what the word "Is, is?" I've lost all respect for you and your posts. You are one naive person. Unless the spending has "This is an earmark" it isn't an earmark, in your eyes. I've read enough of your tripe. You need to grow up some mentally.

 

[Newby]

From your source: In theory and publicity, the package is “earmark free.”

But I'll agre if you use a broader meaning of "earmark" to mean the inclusion of what one thinks is "pork," then there were earmarks.

This is a prime example. To naively continue to say that there wasn't wasteful spending in that bill

This *is* a prime example. Of your fabrication and falsehood. Prove otherwise by citing my post where I ever said "there wasn't wasteful spending in that bill".

Or ignore and be proved a liar and hypocrite by your own terms.

Again? Must be nice to make up your own definitions of words when it suits you.

Why don't you tell us why Obama promised no earmarks when he was campaigning, what did he have against them?

 

[Newby]

This is a prime example. To naively continue to say that there wasn't wasteful spending in that bill

This is a prime example. Of your fabrication and falsehood. Prove otherwise by citing my post where I ever said "there wasn't wasteful spending in that bill".

Or ignore and be proved a liar and hypocrite by your own terms.

Now we're getting down to the crux of this whole thread. We have to define what the word "Is, is?" I've lost all respect for you and your posts. You are one naive person. Unless the spending has "This is an earmark" it isn't an earmark, in your eyes. I've read enough of your tripe. You need to grow up some mentally.

Exactly. I'm glad that someone else sees it for what it is.

 

[driveby]

Thoses weren't earmarks.

Are you fucking serious ? That shit ranks right up there with " i did not have sexual relations with that woman" .............

Yeah, I'm fucking serious. Show me a reliable source that proves they were earmarks and I'll retract.

Ohh, so the source would have to meet your standards of "reliable".

What isn't "reliable" are promises made by Hussein.

Unless you're a total braindead moron, you know your argument is weak and nothing but semantics anyway. Just as my Clinton analogy points out, he stuck his lil wee wee in the chubby girls mouth instead of her dumpster with a Davey Crockett hat, so it really wasn't "sexual relations". This whole freakin bill was an earmark, so there were technically no earmarks.......

 

[Iriemon]

This is a prime example. To naively continue to say that there wasn't wasteful spending in that bill

This is a prime example. Of your fabrication and falsehood. Prove otherwise by citing my post where I ever said "there wasn't wasteful spending in that bill".

Or ignore and be proved a liar and hypocrite by your own terms.

Now we're getting down to the crux of this whole thread. We have to define what the word "Is, is?" I've lost all respect for you and your posts. You are one naive person. Unless the spending has "This is an earmark" it isn't an earmark, in your eyes. I've read enough of your tripe. You need to grow up some mentally.

I didn't define anything. Go back to the start of the posts. RGS claimed there were earmarks in the stimulus bill. I had recalled there weren't "earmarks" in the stimulus bill as opposed to the omnibus bill. All I did was ask for a source to support that assertion.

After four different people jumped in to add their opinions, and no one cited a source for the contention, you finally did.

Great. Your own cites prove that there weren't "earmarks" in the stimulus bill as the term has been used to describe situation were money is specifically earmarked for spending by a particular congress person. There were only "earmarks" in it if you use a broader definition of earmarks. Which I acknowledged.

If you don't like what your own sources say, sorry.

 

[Iriemon]

... Numerous people have confronted you over your falsehoods however, and you just cluelessly plow ahead as if they hadn't said anything, or ignore them.

This is a prime example. To naively continue to say that there wasn't wasteful spending in that bill

This *is* a prime example. Of your fabrication and falsehood. Prove otherwise by citing my post where I ever said "there wasn't wasteful spending in that bill".

Or ignore and be proved a liar and hypocrite by your own terms.

Again? Must be nice to make up your own definitions of words when it suits you.

Why don't you tell us why Obama promised no earmarks when he was campaigning, what did he have against them?

You claim I ignore people who accuse me of falsehoods.

I just accused you a specific falsehood by lying about my statement and challenged you to prove your accusation.

You ignored it and failed to back up your false accusation.

Convicted by your own statement. The record is clear.