quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Don't have much problem with this take

From the "Winners" section of that article:

quote:

"He also proposes loan guarantees to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases through a variety of means -- renewable energy projects, transmission projects, and carbon sequestration projects to keep smokestack gasses."

Anyone else nervous about his whole "cap and trade" idea? McCain's dumb ass wanted it too, so it would probably come to us either way, but jesus... talk about a scam. It's basically just creating a market out of thin air (no pun intended) so the government can have a new taxable revanue stream.

quote:

The federal government will soon begin tapping into a huge new source of revenue by requiring companies to pay for the permission to emit so-called greenhouse gasses linked to global warming. The basic outline is that large sources of greenhouse gasses, such as electric utilities to purchase permits from the government for the gasses they emit, including carbon dioxide. A "cap-and-trade system" would be created, under which the government would place a cap, or limit, on the total amount of greenhouse gasses that can be emitted. Companies that need to exceed their allotted level must buy offsetting permits from those that emit less.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29395517/

Ok, so we got that. But here's where the scam/scheme comes into play: Peter Orszag, the Congressional Budget Office director, now the head of Office and Management and Budget under Obama, told the House Ways and Means committee in September that such a system would create a new commodity, the right to emit carbon dioxide... a new commodity government could tax. Didn't realize that air was a "new commodity"... what a joke. "The CBO estimated that by 2020 the value of these allowances could total between 50 and $300 billion annually, an enormous revenue stream that at the high end would be equal in size to roughly half the benefits paid out in Social Security last year." WTF. If anyone has noticed, this idea has already been tried in Europe and is failing miserably:

quote:

A year ago European governments allocated a limited number of carbon emission permits to their big polluters. Businesses that reduce pollution are allowed to sell spare permits to ones that need more. As demand outstrips this capped supply, and the price of permits rises, an incentive grows to invest in green energy. Why buy costly permits to keep a coal plant running when you can put the cash into clean power instead? All this only works as the carbon price lifts. As with 1924 Château Lafite or Damian Hirst’s diamond skulls, scarcity and speculation create the value. If permits are cheap, and everyone has lots, the green incentive crashes into reverse. As recession slashes output, companies pile up permits they don’t need and sell them on. The price falls, and anyone who wants to pollute can afford to do so. The result is a system that does nothing at all for climate change but a lot for the bottom lines of mega-polluters such as the steelmaker Corus: industrial assistance in camouflage. “I don’t know why industrials would miss this opportunity,” said one trader last week. “They are using it to compensate for the tightening of credit and the slowdown, to pay for redundancies.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...arket-pollution

The laws of supply and demand, no?

"All of which has set off what Julian Glover calls the 'Great Pollution Fire Sale'. He blames the EU for being too generous in its allocation of carbon credits, but the allocation was calculated during economic growth. The EU wanted to make sure that the cap-and-trade system didn’t interfere with the economy, and so made sure that the energy producers didn’t get disincentivized enough to create artifical energy shortages that would have stalled growth.

Now, of course, Europe has all sorts of excess capacity in energy production thanks to the economic downturn of the past few months. The cap-and-trade system essentially subsidizes non-production, and the energy producers have cashed in. Only now, those credits aren’t worth warm spit, because no one else is ready to start producing enough to worry about exceeding carbon caps. It’s a perfectly-formed system for failure; no one would part with the credits in boom times, and no one will buy them in a bust.

Part of this comes from the fact that the commodity being traded has no essential value anyway. It’s air, the ultimate vaporware product. There is no scarcity in carbon dioxide, and so markets for it will always be artificial and contrived. Glover’s criticism about the amount of credits is akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The problem isn’t the credits, but the falsity of the entire operation."

-ED Morrissey

Why do we never seem to learn from the failures that Europe tries with programs such as these?

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss From the "Winners" section of that article: Anyone else nervous about his whole "cap and trade" idea? McCain's dumb ass wanted it too, so it would probably come to us either way, but jesus... talk about a scam. It's basically just creating a market out of thin air (no pun intended) so the government can have a new taxable revanue stream. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29395517/ Ok, so we got that. But here's where the scam/scheme comes into play: Peter Orszag, the Congressional Budget Office director, now the head of Office and Management and Budget under Obama, told the House Ways and Means committee in September that such a system would create a new commodity, the right to emit carbon dioxide... a new commodity government could tax. Didn't realize that air was a "new commodity"... what a joke. "The CBO estimated that by 2020 the value of these allowances could total between 50 and $300 billion annually, an enormous revenue stream that at the high end would be equal in size to roughly half the benefits paid out in Social Security last year." WTF. If anyone has noticed, this idea has already been tried in Europe and is failing miserably: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...arket-pollution The laws of supply and demand, no? "All of which has set off what Julian Glover calls the 'Great Pollution Fire Sale'. He blames the EU for being too generous in its allocation of carbon credits, but the allocation was calculated during economic growth. The EU wanted to make sure that the cap-and-trade system didn’t interfere with the economy, and so made sure that the energy producers didn’t get disincentivized enough to create artifical energy shortages that would have stalled growth. Now, of course, Europe has all sorts of excess capacity in energy production thanks to the economic downturn of the past few months. The cap-and-trade system essentially subsidizes non-production, and the energy producers have cashed in. Only now, those credits aren’t worth warm spit, because no one else is ready to start producing enough to worry about exceeding carbon caps. It’s a perfectly-formed system for failure; no one would part with the credits in boom times, and no one will buy them in a bust. Part of this comes from the fact that the commodity being traded has no essential value anyway. It’s air, the ultimate vaporware product. There is no scarcity in carbon dioxide, and so markets for it will always be artificial and contrived. Glover’s criticism about the amount of credits is akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The problem isn’t the credits, but the falsity of the entire operation." -ED Morrissey Why do we never seem to learn from the failures that Europe tries with programs such as these?

Fucking face->palm.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy I was actually surprised the market didn't sell off more today. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised the Dow broke into the 6000s in the next trading day or two.

Yeah, it's going to be today....

Fantastic.

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

Wow Josh, that was one of the worst editorials I have ever read. And god damn if I don't have the best signature in this joint.

Last edited by Shakka on Feb-27-2009 at 14:57

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka

Sad but true.....

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Wow Josh, that was one of the worst editorials I have ever read. And god damn if I don't have the best signature in this joint.

Maybe check your email spam folder for something better then.

Obama’s Budget Plan Sweeps Away Reagan Ideas

Hmm, bye bye Reagan. Stale ideas for a past age.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Maybe check your email spam folder for something better then. Obama’s Budget Plan Sweeps Away Reagan Ideas Hmm, bye bye Reagan. Stale ideas for a past age.

A sad statement for sure (and don't worry, I get the Times). I must remind myself that you were but an insignificant dot in a glob of semen when Reagan was in his prime so your criticism rings pretty hollow.


"A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have."

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka A sad statement for sure (and don't worry, I get the Times). I must remind myself that you were but an insignificant dot in a glob of semen when Reagan was in his prime so your criticism rings pretty hollow. "A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have."

lol so we're not allowed to have opinions on anything before our time? I'll be sure to remember that next time you bring up the New Deal or parallels to the great depression or whathaveyou.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 lol so we're not allowed to have opinions on anything before our time? I'll be sure to remember that next time you bring up the New Deal or parallels to the great depression or whathaveyou.

Well gee, Josh. If you actually have any substantive criticisms of Reagan (or anything for that matter), other than to just say "Stale ideas for a past age" without actually saying which of his policies you find wrong and "stale," then yes, I think you would be better served to bite your tongue. But g'head if you really want. You can have an opinion on anything you want. Please convince me that the solution to too much debt is unprecedented, massive amounts of new debt and redistribution schemes. I'm waiting.

On another note, do you have a job yet?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Well gee, Josh. If you actually have any substantive criticisms of Reagan (or anything for that matter), other than to just say "Stale ideas for a past age" without actually saying which of his policies you find wrong and "stale," then yes, I think you would be better served to bite your tongue. But g'head if you really want. You can have an opinion on anything you want. Please convince me that the solution to too much debt is unprecedented, massive amounts of new debt and redistribution schemes. I'm waiting. On another note, do you have a job yet?

I don't understand what you mean about the job? Yes I have had one for a good while now.

I don't have much time to get into a protracted debate. I'll have to leave you with another opt-ed and other reading.

quote:

End Times for Reaganism Tuesday, October 28, 2008 When John McCain at last focused on the economy in this campaign, he recycled the Republican playbook from the late 70s and early 80s. Those old moves had had a remarkable shelf life, lasting a generation. They had carried the first of the hapless Bushes to the White House in 1988 and powered Newt Gingrich’s revolution in 1994. Even at the start of a new century they were still in use, occupying the heart of George W. Bush’s domestic economic policies. But now McCain is learning the hard way, even if he won’t yet admit it, that the Reagan playbook’s time has come and gone. The old Republican trick was to lie about taxes: Democrats would raise everybody’s and Republicans would cut everybody’s. (In reality, Republican largesse meant the millionaire reaped a windfall while the waitress got pennies and the public debt soared.) McCain has resuscitated that canard, making the case against Obama’s progressive tax policy. But he’ll lose the argument—and the Presidency—because the Republican era of wholesale deregulation and the redistribution of wealth, upward, is over. It is no longer enough to utter conservative epithets like “liberal” and “tax.” McCain’s implication that Obama wants to “spread the wealth” around rather than create wealth is dissonant at a time when Republicans are presiding over the greatest wealth destruction in history. Meantime, Obama has brilliantly pounded two numbers into the national consciousness—$250,000 (you don’t face a tax increase if you earn less) and 95 percent (the percentage of Americans who will receive a tax cut under Obama’s proposal). As the campaign entered its final fortnight, smart Republicans began suggesting that McCain put some spin on this ball to give it a semblance of still being in play. During a debate with me last week in Washington, Frum urged McCain’s campaign to grasp for yet another message—this time, the danger of one party dominance of Washington. Conservatives heartily approved of one party—their party’s—dominance from 2003 to 2007. What they dread now is that Democratic ascendance could lead to horrors like national health reform. Although the faithful chant, “Obama, Pelosi, Reid” at McCain’s sparsely attended rallies, voters overall now scorn the appeal to divided government. In addition to being politically misguided, this latest Republican argument is flatly ahistorical. Great economic challenges—from the New Deal in 1932, to the new economics of the 1960s (which followed three recessions in the preceding decade), to the Clinton fiscal turnaround in 1993—were all handled by one party—the Democratic Party, as it happened—in charge at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. Even the exception proved the rule. In 1981, President Reagan enjoyed a Republican Senate and effective control of the House on taxes and spending due to support from conservative Democrats. Back in 2008, we keep hearing about Joe the Plumber. If McCain were paying Joe a plumber’s hourly wage for his time, he wouldn’t have any cash left for travel or television. Yet it still doesn’t seem to be working. The evident failure of McCain’s argument, the last in a series of tactical improvisations, is more than a prelude to defeat for one man or one party in one election. Instead, the 2008 campaign has shown that we have, at long last, entered post-Reagan America. At what may be the dawn of a new progressive era, Republicans will have to make a choice. I don’t believe they ever will, or even should, proclaim “me too” and mimic Democrats. Instead, they should rethink and then renew their purpose, asking hard questions about the meaning of conservative principles in a different economy and a changing world. The alternative is to repeat the past, perhaps with Sarah Palin, the hockey mom in couture, in a starring role. Ronald Reagan, who in his dealings with the Russians proved he was more realist than ideologue, would surely look at such a legacy and ask: “Where’s the rest of me?” http://www.theweek.com/article/inde...s_for_Reaganism

quote:

(BOOK) Reaganism & the Death of Representative Democracy By Walter Williams This is a reasoned but passionate look at how Reaganism--the political philosophy of Ronald Reagan--has severely damaged representative democracy as created by the nation's founders. According to Williams, Reagan and his foremost disciple George W. Bush have created a plutocracy where the United States is no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people but is ruled by the wealthiest individuals and corporate America. Refreshingly unafraid to point out that Reaganism's antigovernment fundamentalism stands on feet of day, Walter Williams asks that Americans move from their political apathy to pay attention to the politicians and the corporations lurking behind the power curtain to see the dangers they represent to the true essential of the American way of life. Williams's most important contribution is his extended analysis of the central role the key institutions--the presidency, Congress, the federal agencies--must play for the U.S. government to be capable in both sustaining representative democracy and protecting the safety and economic security of the American people. A clear result of the weakened institutions has been the grossly inadequate homeland security effort following September 11, and the massive corporate fraud revealed by Enron and other large firms that robbed the nation of hundreds of billions of dollars in stock values and depleted the pension savings of millions of people. The initial destructive below that damaged the institutions of governance can be traced to Ronald Reagan and his simplistic antigovernment philosophy that fostered rapacious business practices and personal greed. The book also takes the media to task, criticizing the dismalrecord of failing to investigate the political and corporate chicanery that has brought us this pass. Keenly argued and scrupulously documented, Walter Williams has written a stinging wake-up call to the dangers of the demise of representative democracy and the rise of plutocracy that American citizens can ignore only at their peril. FULL BOOK HERE

BTW, The17sss may recognize the above author as a sometimes substitute host for the Rush Limbaugh show.

Last edited by josh4 on Feb-27-2009 at 18:50

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Hmm, bye bye Reagan. Stale ideas for a past age.

yet, the Democrats/media love to co-opt Regan when it's time for Obama to give a serious speech proclaiming such and such speech will be "Reganesque"