Obama calls Supreme Court EPA ruling "backwards"

[bripat9643]

I do not. The point is that the language of the Clean Air Act, which Congress DID pass, DOES authorize the EPA to address CO2 pollution at the grid level*.

Quote the Clean Air Act where it says that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I assume you were alive in the 50s and 60s. The maximum tax rate during that period was 91%. GDP grew at an AVERAGE of 5% and as high as 8.5%.

Higher growth is caused by higher top tax rates?

Any research to back up your theory?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The decision in EPA v West Virginia had nothing to do with the Constitution. The question was whether or not Congress, in the language of the Clean Air Act of 1965, had empowered the EPA to address power plant pollution issues at the grid-level.

If Congress wants the EPA to regulate CO2, all they have to do is vote to regulate CO2.

Do it, for the children!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That the court chose to act on a measure that wasn't going to be used is simply evidence supporting my contention that it was political theater.

Of course, they should trust the drooling idiot in the White House saying they weren't going to use it.

 

[bripat9643]

Higher growth is caused by higher top tax rates?

Any research to back up your theory?

The claim that taxes increase economic growth is too absurd for words to describe.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I do not. The point is that the language of the Clean Air Act, which Congress DID pass, DOES authorize the EPA to address CO2 pollution at the grid level*.

Nope. No moving the goal posts.

They didn't mention CO2 in 1965. Never called it pollution in the legislation.
They don't get to change a definition and cost the economy trillions.

If everyone thinks we need it, they'll be able to pass new legislation authorizing the EPA to do it.

 

[Crick]

BTW, the language in the decision never uses the term "grid level," so I don't know what the hell you are talking about.

From the Syllabus:

Building blocks two and three were quite different, as both involved what EPA called “generation shifting” at the grid level—i.e., a shift in electricity production from higher-emitting to lower-emitting producers.

EPA explained that the Clean Power Plan, rather than setting the standard “based on the application of equipment and practices at the level of an individual facility,” had instead based it on “a shift in the energy generation mix at the grid level,” id., at 32523.

Indeed, the Agency nodded to the novelty of its approach when it explained that it was pursuing a “broader, forward-thinking approach to the design” of Section 111 regulations that would “improve the overall power system,” rather than the emissions performance of individual sources, by forcing a shift throughout the power grid from one type of energy source to another. 80 Fed. Reg. 64703 (emphasis added). This view of EPA’s authority was not only unprecedented; it also effected a “fundamental revision of the statute, changing it from [one sort of] scheme of . . . regulation” into an entirely different kind.

The Government attempts to downplay matters, noting that the Agency must limit the magnitude of generation shift it demands to a level that will not be “exorbitantly costly” or “threaten the reliability of the grid.”

From the Opinion of the Court:

EPA explained that taking any of these steps would implement a sector-wide shift in electricity production from coal to natural gas and renewables. Id., at 64731. Given the integrated nature of the power grid, “adding electricity to the grid from one generator will result in the instantaneous reduction in generation from other generators,” and “reductions in generation from one generator lead to the instantaneous increase in generation” by others.

It then explained that the Clean Power Plan, rather than setting the standard “based on the application of equipment and practices at the level of an individual facility,” had instead based it on “a shift in the energy generation mix at the grid level,” id., at 32523—not the sort of measure that has “a potential for application to an individual source.” Id., at 32524.

And it would do that by forcing a shift throughout the power grid from one type of energy source to another.

EPA decides, for instance, how much of a switch from coal to natural gas is practically feasible by 2020, 2025, and 2030 before the grid collapses, and how high energy prices can go as a result before they become unreasonably “exorbitant.”

From the Dissenting Opinion:

That result follows because regulations affect costs, and the electrical grid works by taking up energy from low-cost providers before high-cost ones.

That action increases those plants’ costs, and automatically (by virtue of the way the grid operates) reduces their share of the electricity market.


If you had taken the time to just read the fucking opinions, you wouldn't get embarrassed like this.

 

[Crick]

Higher growth is caused by higher top tax rates?

Any research to back up your theory?

Tons of it I suspect. Do you reject the numbers I've provided or are you just expressing the distress they create in your weltsicht?

 

[ding]

If you read either of the opinions, you will find I am correct as to what Biden intended to do. This whole SCOTUS action was political theater as they were ruling against a plan that had never been enforced and which the current administration had already announced would not be enforced. The majority opinion states that the EPA CAN impose limits on CO2, they just can't do so at "the grid level" but must do so facility by facility. Congress has already given the EPA permission to do what it was doing. It is only SCOTUS that thinks otherwise.

The clean air act is not a climate act. Is it too much to ask for a climate act?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tons of it I suspect. Do you reject the numbers I've provided or are you just expressing the distress they create in your weltsicht?

Why would I reject actual, real-world numbers?

It's just your silly theory that I'm mocking.

 

[Crick]

Why would I reject actual, real-world numbers?

It's just your silly theory that I'm mocking.

What theory? That trickle-down economics haven't succeeded in doing anything but making the rich richer and the poor poorer? That the rich should pay their share of taxes for reasons both ethical and economical? I don't recall actually presenting any theories. Just data and some heartfelt personal opinions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What theory? That trickle-down economics haven't succeeded in doing anything but making the rich richer and the poor poorer? That the rich should pay their share of taxes for reasons both ethical and economical? I don't recall actually presenting any theories. Just data and some heartfelt personal opinions.

What theory?

You don't believe in a theory that higher taxes cause higher growth?

That's a relief.

That trickle-down economics haven't succeeded in doing anything but making the rich richer and the poor poorer?

How does it do that?

That the rich should pay their share of taxes for reasons both ethical and economical?

The rich pay a higher share of federal income taxes than they did in 1970, or 1960, or 1950.

 

[Crick]

What theory?

You don't believe in a theory that higher taxes cause higher growth?

That's a relief.

That trickle-down economics haven't succeeded in doing anything but making the rich richer and the poor poorer?

How does it do that?

That the rich should pay their share of taxes for reasons both ethical and economical?

The rich pay a higher share of federal income taxes than they did in 1970, or 1960, or 1950.

I believe that the tax structure used in the 50s and 60s was more fair and seems to have at least enabled desirable economic trends. Trickle-down economics makes the rich richer because that is its central purpose. It makes the poor poorer because that is where the money comes from to make the rich richer. Your last comment is deceptive, though I couldn't say whether you intended that or not. The problem is that the rich of the 50s and 60s are not the rich of today. Those in the past paid more of THEIR income in taxes than do those of today. That's what I think needs doing. But then, I'm no economist. That's why I don't have any theories to put forward. Just observations and opinions.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Higher growth is caused by higher top tax rates?

Any research to back up your theory?

Higher growth is caused by higher top tax rates?

Any research to back up your theory?

What he doesn't realize is that no one paid the maximum rate. There were so many loopholes and tax shelters it was unbelievable. For instance, ALL interest on consumer loans and credit cards was totally deductible. The rich could deduct the interest and maintenece on as many houses, RVs and boats that they desired as long as they had a bedroom, bathroom and kitchen to qualify as a residence. The first time I itemized my taxes I was amazed at the number of deductions.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Former President Barack Obama is expressing his disappointment with a new Supreme Court ruling that could severely limit the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency.
"No challenge poses a greater threat to our future than a changing climate," Obama wrote on Twitter after the decision was made public Thursday. "Every day, we're feeling the impact of climate change, and today's Supreme Court decision is a major step backward."
In a 6-3 decision, SCOTUS concluded that the EPA does not have authority to regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants, making it more difficult to achieve environmental goals and decelerate climate change.

Barack Obama Calls Supreme Court's EPA Ruling 'Major Step Backward' for Stopping Climate Change

After SCOTUS limited the EPA's power in a ruling Thursday, Obama urged Congress to support Biden's climate initiatives in order to prevent future environmental collapse

news.yahoo.com

Comment:
This is a recurring problem.
The Democrat Party abuses their power.
The EPA is under the Executive Branch.
They cannot make laws.
The politization of the government agencies started under Barry the Magnificent.
This is a dangerous erosion of our constitutional republic form of government.
View attachment 664758

Well, when you have a country which has no power to govern itself, to set policy and make it work, then what's the point?

 

[Crick]

What he doesn't realize is that no one paid the maximum rate. There were so many loopholes and tax shelters it was unbelievable. For instance, ALL interest on consumer loans and credit cards was totally deductible. The rich could deduct the interest and maintenece on as many houses, RVs and boats that they desired as long as they had a bedroom, bathroom and kitchen to qualify as a residence. The first time I itemized my taxes I was amazed at the number of deductions.

I see that folks that don't want to talk about SCOTUS, the EPA and CO2 have managed to derail this discussion.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I believe that the tax structure used in the 50s and 60s was more fair and seems to have at least enabled desirable economic trends. Trickle-down economics makes the rich richer because that is its central purpose. It makes the poor poorer because that is where the money comes from to make the rich richer. Your last comment is deceptive, though I couldn't say whether you intended that or not. The problem is that the rich of the 50s and 60s are not the rich of today. Those in the past paid more of THEIR income in taxes than do those of today. That's what I think needs doing. But then, I'm no economist. That's why I don't have any theories to put forward. Just observations and opinions.

I believe that the tax structure used in the 50s and 60s was more fair and seems to have at least enabled desirable economic trends.

The rich didn't pay 91%, and they paid a smaller share than they pay now.

It makes the poor poorer because that is where the money comes from to make the rich richer.

So tax cuts on the rich make the poor poorer because they give more of their money to the rich than they did with higher tax rates on the rich?

Sounds very convoluted.

Your last comment is deceptive, though I couldn't say whether you intended that or not.

It's true, so how is that deceptive?

The problem is that the rich of the 50s and 60s are not the rich of today. Those in the past paid more of THEIR income in taxes than do those of today.

In the old days, the "rich" paid, let's say, $100 of every $500 collected in income taxes.
Today, the "rich" pay $200 of every $500 collected in income taxes.
While they may have more "leftover" after they paid their taxes, the rest of us have even more "leftover", because we're only paying $300 where we used to pay $400. I prefer everyone pay less with the newer, lower rates.

You sound a bit like Obama in 2008 when he said the rich should pay higher capital gains taxes.
When he was told that higher rates result in fewer dollars collected (less for the government to spend) he said, yes, but rates should be higher to make things fair.

I guess if you prefer punishment to actual government revenues, your way is better.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I see that folks that don't want to talk about SCOTUS, the EPA and CO2 have managed to derail this discussion.

You need to contact your congressman and senators and tell them we need some good old fashioned CO2 restriction legislation. TODAY!

 

[Crick]

We need a Constitutional Amendment mandating that no one named Thomas, Barret, Kavanaugh, Alito or Gorsuch are allowed to sit on the Supreme Court. Roberts is okay.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We need a Constitutional Amendment mandating that no one named Thomas, Barret, Kavanaugh, Alito or Gorsuch are allowed to sit on the Supreme Court. Roberts is okay.

All you need are 38 states to agree.