BREAKING: Senate kills cap-and-trade

[Alexander Hamilton]

So Sanity has finally returned to America.

If you say so, Inhofe.

Again with the strawman.
I'm sorry if I have a problem sending millions of people into poverty just to save a few fucking trees.

Ok, I have to facepalm here because environmentally friendly legislation does not equal impoverishing loads of people.  Seriously, where did you get that ridiculous notion from?

If only I had a big stick on me...

Dude, in these economic times it would be stupid to go ahead with a plan like this. Wait until we are booming before pulling this. People are sacrificing enough as it is.

Ok, at this point I'll admit I'm unfamiliar with the legislation in question, but what about it in particular do you object to?

Just the whole mindset of it: to punish those who use fuel sources deemed "harmful". Pretty much people would have to pay the government extra to use certain fuel sources yet the government (who does the most polluting) gets off scot free! I wouldn't usually make a big deal about this but WE'RE STILL KIND OF IN A CRAPPY ECONOMY AND THIS IS DEFINITELY NOT THE RIGHT TIME TO START TALKING ABOUT A PLAN LIKE THIS.
I mean people are sacrificing as it is.

mechman gets it

[Sewer]

lol @ Inhofe.

[ChrisJG777]

So Sanity has finally returned to America.

If you say so, Inhofe.

Again with the strawman.
I'm sorry if I have a problem sending millions of people into poverty just to save a few fucking trees.

Ok, I have to facepalm here because environmentally friendly legislation does not equal impoverishing loads of people.  Seriously, where did you get that ridiculous notion from?

If only I had a big stick on me...

Dude, in these economic times it would be stupid to go ahead with a plan like this. Wait until we are booming before pulling this. People are sacrificing enough as it is.

Ok, at this point I'll admit I'm unfamiliar with the legislation in question, but what about it in particular do you object to?

Just the whole mindset of it: to punish those who use fuel sources deemed "harmful". Pretty much people would have to pay the government extra to use certain fuel sources yet the government (who does the most polluting) gets off scot free! I wouldn't usually make a big deal about this but WE'RE STILL KIND OF IN A CRAPPY ECONOMY AND THIS IS DEFINITELY NOT THE RIGHT TIME TO START TALKING ABOUT A PLAN LIKE THIS.
I mean people are sacrificing as it is.

I've had a read round and to be honest I still don't see what's so bad about it.  So really, I'll go back to previous statement that Environmentally friendly legislation ≠ Putting everyone else's finances into the crapper.  In fact if anything something like this ought to encourage innovation into clear technology and well, you need someone to build the equipment, et cetera, et cetera.  But that's my slant on the issue in brief.

[Mechaman]

So Sanity has finally returned to America.

If you say so, Inhofe.

Again with the strawman.
I'm sorry if I have a problem sending millions of people into poverty just to save a few fucking trees.

Ok, I have to facepalm here because environmentally friendly legislation does not equal impoverishing loads of people.  Seriously, where did you get that ridiculous notion from?

If only I had a big stick on me...

Dude, in these economic times it would be stupid to go ahead with a plan like this. Wait until we are booming before pulling this. People are sacrificing enough as it is.

Ok, at this point I'll admit I'm unfamiliar with the legislation in question, but what about it in particular do you object to?

Just the whole mindset of it: to punish those who use fuel sources deemed "harmful". Pretty much people would have to pay the government extra to use certain fuel sources yet the government (who does the most polluting) gets off scot free! I wouldn't usually make a big deal about this but WE'RE STILL KIND OF IN A CRAPPY ECONOMY AND THIS IS DEFINITELY NOT THE RIGHT TIME TO START TALKING ABOUT A PLAN LIKE THIS.
I mean people are sacrificing as it is.

I've had a read round and to be honest I still don't see what's so bad about it.  So really, I'll go back to previous statement that Environmentally friendly legislation ≠ Putting everyone else's finances into the crapper.  In fact if anything something like this ought to encourage innovation into clear technology and well, you need someone to build the equipment, et cetera, et cetera.  But that's my slant on the issue in brief.

Again let me reiterate: Cap and Trade does not equal all Environmentally Friendly legislation. There are plenty of Environmentally Friendly legislation I would approve of, but not Cap and Trade. In my opinion Cap and Trade is not Environmentally Friendly legislation, it is a government ponzi scheme.

[ChrisJG777]

So Sanity has finally returned to America.

If you say so, Inhofe.

Again with the strawman.
I'm sorry if I have a problem sending millions of people into poverty just to save a few fucking trees.

Ok, I have to facepalm here because environmentally friendly legislation does not equal impoverishing loads of people.  Seriously, where did you get that ridiculous notion from?

If only I had a big stick on me...

Dude, in these economic times it would be stupid to go ahead with a plan like this. Wait until we are booming before pulling this. People are sacrificing enough as it is.

Ok, at this point I'll admit I'm unfamiliar with the legislation in question, but what about it in particular do you object to?

Just the whole mindset of it: to punish those who use fuel sources deemed "harmful". Pretty much people would have to pay the government extra to use certain fuel sources yet the government (who does the most polluting) gets off scot free! I wouldn't usually make a big deal about this but WE'RE STILL KIND OF IN A CRAPPY ECONOMY AND THIS IS DEFINITELY NOT THE RIGHT TIME TO START TALKING ABOUT A PLAN LIKE THIS.
I mean people are sacrificing as it is.

I've had a read round and to be honest I still don't see what's so bad about it.  So really, I'll go back to previous statement that Environmentally friendly legislation ≠ Putting everyone else's finances into the crapper.  In fact if anything something like this ought to encourage innovation into clear technology and well, you need someone to build the equipment, et cetera, et cetera.  But that's my slant on the issue in brief.

Again let me reiterate: Cap and Trade does not equal all Environmentally Friendly legislation. There are plenty of Environmentally Friendly legislation I would approve of, but not Cap and Trade. In my opinion Cap and Trade is not Environmentally Friendly legislation, it is a government ponzi scheme.

This is where viewpoints diverge I believe...

[Mechaman]

So Sanity has finally returned to America.

If you say so, Inhofe.

Again with the strawman.
I'm sorry if I have a problem sending millions of people into poverty just to save a few fucking trees.

Ok, I have to facepalm here because environmentally friendly legislation does not equal impoverishing loads of people.  Seriously, where did you get that ridiculous notion from?

If only I had a big stick on me...

Dude, in these economic times it would be stupid to go ahead with a plan like this. Wait until we are booming before pulling this. People are sacrificing enough as it is.

Ok, at this point I'll admit I'm unfamiliar with the legislation in question, but what about it in particular do you object to?

Just the whole mindset of it: to punish those who use fuel sources deemed "harmful". Pretty much people would have to pay the government extra to use certain fuel sources yet the government (who does the most polluting) gets off scot free! I wouldn't usually make a big deal about this but WE'RE STILL KIND OF IN A CRAPPY ECONOMY AND THIS IS DEFINITELY NOT THE RIGHT TIME TO START TALKING ABOUT A PLAN LIKE THIS.
I mean people are sacrificing as it is.

I've had a read round and to be honest I still don't see what's so bad about it.  So really, I'll go back to previous statement that Environmentally friendly legislation ≠ Putting everyone else's finances into the crapper.  In fact if anything something like this ought to encourage innovation into clear technology and well, you need someone to build the equipment, et cetera, et cetera.  But that's my slant on the issue in brief.

Again let me reiterate: Cap and Trade does not equal all Environmentally Friendly legislation. There are plenty of Environmentally Friendly legislation I would approve of, but not Cap and Trade. In my opinion Cap and Trade is not Environmentally Friendly legislation, it is a government ponzi scheme.

This is where viewpoints diverge I believe...

Agreed.

[Sbane]

What kind of environmentally friendly legislation do you support, Mechman?

[Mechaman]

What kind of environmentally friendly legislation do you support, Mechman?

Like I said in the earlier thread I'm all for taking away oil and gas subsidies and putting those towards alternate energy research. I also support the EPA doing it's job (ie not letting corporations and other polluters get away with dancing around the law, enforcing water purity laws, etc.). There are quite a few others as well. Not so sure about a carbon tax.

[Stampever]

If that's true, then that's a victory for the good guys (being the US Economy and US Taxpayers).  There are so many more reasonable and viable approaches to transitioning the economy into a more "green" version without taxing companies and consumers to death.

Poor poor px.  Are your blinders obscuring your view of the reality of the cap-and-trade legislations impact on the everyday person, especially those who are in the "threatend middle class" that the Democrats are so afraid for?  Or is your head just wedged too far up your backside that you just don't want to face reality itself?  Cap-and-trade will hurt the economic base of our nation more than it will hep the environment, and when there are more sensible ways to achieve a healthier environment without making people poorer, this "defeat" is a victory.

[JWHart]

Oh dear god, people, the opening post was a fake.

[Torie]

This was DOA a long time ago. It makes zero economic sense.