Anyone wondering whether it’s a great idea for one party to have the White House plus the House of Representatives plus a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate?
And even moreso when that party seeks bigger and more powerful government at every turn?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Anyone wondering whether it’s a great idea for one party to have the White House plus the House of Representatives plus a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate?
And even moreso when that party seeks bigger and more powerful government at every turn?[/quote]
I could have lived with the legislative branch of the mid 90’s and Ronald Reagan in the executive a thousand times easier than this.
You can go here and send a form letter opposing cap & trade to your representative in Congress:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Can someone who DOES believe in human-caused, EPIC DOOM, global warming comment on cap-and-trade?
I’m saying this because it is quite obvious those who don’t believe in the above will obviously not support cap-and-trade. I’m interested if anyone who DOES believe the above dissents from the cap-and-trade support-orgy.
Before the Industrial Revolution, most children died before age 10, often of starvation. If industrial civilisation is evil, think of slouching in a mud hut, screeching at the demons who caused a flood to wash away all your crops. Science, medicine, and the very food we eat, are a result of a human mind thinking. These things are part and parcel of the Industrial Revolution. Capitalism is the only ‘ism’ that did most of us any good.
Now Nancy, Harry, Barack and Company, want to shut this down. They want to turn back the clock to when the rivers and air were pristene, and we had a life expectancy of about 35. By the way, old people couldn’t hunt anymore so got no food. Remnants show that many often gnawed through their own cheeks out of hunger.
I prefer pollution.
[/quote]
Isn’t it interesting how we are the ones that everybody ALWAYS comes to for help with EVERYTHING. I wonder how they think we got all those resources.
With everything Obama is doing, the Repubs just need a solid candidate and to get their shit together. I mean, Obama is really just following in a similar behavior as George W did with everyone finally hating him at the end. Every step Obama is taking, is just adding to what could be Republican success in 2012. They just need a good candidate.
To give everyone an idea of how we handle things here, Demo Assemblywoman Noreen Evans is trying to raise state taxes here in Cali, with her saying, “Living within our means, means nothing.” People have flooded her office with calls and emails to the point where they no longer answer the phone. That’s how you do it.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
With everything Obama is doing, the Repubs just need a solid candidate and to get their shit together. I mean, Obama is really just following in a similar behavior as George W did with everyone finally hating him at the end. Every step Obama is taking, is just adding to what could be Republican success in 2012. They just need a good candidate.
To give everyone an idea of how we handle things here, Demo Assemblywoman Noreen Evans is trying to raise state taxes here in Cali, with her saying, “Living within our means, means nothing.” People have flooded her office with calls and emails to the point where they no longer answer the phone. That’s how you do it. [/quote]
Agreed. Put a clean solid candidate up in 2012 and Obama is done. I truly see this bill as costing the Dems control of one of the houses in 2010…if this country has any sense left at all.
Care to wonder how many people the petrochem industry employs in this country?
Think the price of gasoline might skyrocket. Don’t worry though your elected Democratic representatives didn’t even read the fucking bill so how can they be blamed.
Big Oilâ??s Answer to Carbon Law May Be Fuel Imports (Update2)
By Joe Carroll and Edward Klump
June 26 (Bloomberg) – Americaâ??s biggest oil companies will probably cope with U.S. carbon legislation by closing fuel plants, cutting capital spending and increasing imports.
Under the Waxman-Markey climate bill that may be voted on today by the U.S. House, refiners would have to buy allowances for carbon dioxide spewed from their plants and from vehicles when motorists burn their fuel. Imports would need permits only for the latter, which ConocoPhillips Chief Executive Officer Jim Mulva said would create a competitive imbalance.
â??It will lead to the opportunity for foreign sources to bring in transportation fuels at a lower cost, which will have an adverse impact to our industry, potential shutdown of refineries and investment and, ultimately, employment,â?? Mulva said in a June 16 interview in Detroit. Houston-based ConocoPhillips has the second-largest U.S. refining capacity.
The same amount of gasoline that would have $1 in carbon costs imposed if it were domestic would have 10 cents less added if it were imported, according to energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie in Houston. Contrary to President Barack Obamaâ??s goal of reducing dependence on overseas energy suppliers, the bill would incent U.S. refiners to import more fuel, said Clayton Mahaffey, an analyst at RedChip Cos. in Maitland, Florida.
â??Theyâ??ll be searching the globe for refined products that donâ??t carry the same level of carbon costs,â?? said Mahaffey, a former Exxon Corp. refinery manager.
Prices Seen Rising
The equivalent of one in six U.S. refineries probably would close by 2020 as the cost of carbon allowances erases profits, according to the American Petroleum Institute, a Washington trade group known as API. Carbon permits would add 77 cents a gallon to the price of gasoline, said Russell Jones, the APIâ??s senior economic adviser.
â??Because itâ??s going to be more expensive to produce the stuff, refiners will slow down production and cut back on inventories to squeeze every penny of profit they can from the system,â?? said Geoffrey Styles, founder of GSW Strategy Group LLC in Vienna, Virginia. â??We will end up with less domestic product on the market and a greater reliance on imports, all of which means higher, more volatile prices.â??
U.S. motorists, already facing the steepest jump in gasoline prices in 18 years, would bear the brunt as refiners pass on added costs, Exxon Mobil Corp. Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson told reporters after a May 27 meeting in Dallas.
Democrats in the House plan to bring the climate bill to a vote as soon as today. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, stopped short of predicting victory at a press conference yesterday, saying she was making progress in building support for the bill.
Carbon Allowances
â??U.S. refineries get 2 percent of allowances to cover any increases in costs they may incur,â?? said Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Pelosi.
Drivers, airlines and trucking companies would pay an additional $178 billion annually, or about $560 for each man, woman and child in the U.S., according to the API, whose 400 members include Irving, Texas-based Exxon Mobil and the U.S. unit of Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Europeâ??s largest oil company.
â??That kind of price impact would significantly hurt the competitiveness of U.S. refiners versus importers,â?? said Glenn McGinnis, chief executive officer at Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma, a Phoenix-based company thatâ??s attempting to build the nationâ??s first new refinery in three decades.
Such estimates and talk of rising imports are scare tactics that oil companies are using to wheedle concessions from lawmakers, said John Coequyt, the Sierra Clubâ??s chief lobbyist in Washington. Refiners are trying to gain relief on carbon- permit costs thatâ??s meant for manufacturers such as steelmakers that are threatened by foreign competition, he said.
â??Saber Rattlingâ??
â??Itâ??s definitely saber rattling, and itâ??s a hell of a threat,â?? Coequyt said. â??The strategic value of this is pretty obvious. They want to qualify for rebates under the competitiveness test, which of course they do not.â??
GSWâ??s Styles, a former Texaco Inc. refinery and trading manager, said the risks are real. Plants unable to turn a profit under the new rules would be closed, he said.
The permit-cost imbalance would open the door for overseas refiners, such as Indiaâ??s Reliance Industries Ltd., owner of the worldâ??s largest crude-processing complex, to ship more fuel to U.S. oil companies, said Bill Holbrook, spokesman for the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association in Washington.
â??Itâ??s going to give domestic refiners a distinct disadvantage,â?? said Holbrook, whose trade group represents such fuel makers as Chevron Corp. and Valero Energy Corp.
Acquisitions Possible
Companies such as San Antonio-based Valero, the biggest U.S. refiner, will respond by stepping up efforts to acquire overseas plants that can ship fuel to their home market, said Brian Youngberg, an analyst at Edward Jones & Co. in Des Peres, Missouri. Valero said last week that it will continue to seek acquisition opportunities after Total SA bought the stake it had agreed to purchase in a Netherlands refining venture.
Carbon costs will stress fuel makers already coping with slumping fuel demand and higher costs to meet a federal mandate for increased ethanol use, said Roger Ihne, an energy client portfolio leader at Deloitte Consulting in Houston. Stricter mileage standards that take effect in 2011 will squeeze demand further, he said.
About 2 million barrels of daily U.S. refining capacity will shut down because carbon costs will be several times the operating profits for some plants, Ihne said. Thatâ??s equivalent to 12 percent of the nationâ??s fuel-making capacity. Jones, the API economist, said there could be as much as 3 million barrels of idled processing capacity.
Plants at Risk
â??Thereâ??s no question there are some marginal refiners that probably will not survive,â?? said Exxon Mobilâ??s Tillerson, whose company has the largest worldwide refining capacity. â??They may go out of business.â?? Exxon Mobil derived 18 percent to 24 percent of its profit from refining in the past five years.
Neither Tillerson, 57, nor ConocoPhillips CEO Mulva, 63, said how their companies would respond to climate rules like those in the Waxman-Markey bill. The legislation would cap emissions and create trading of allowances that polluters would need to meet their requirements.
Chevron CEO David Oâ??Reilly, 62, said in a June 11 speech that the bill is â??unnecessarily complexâ?? and would be more damaging and less transparent than a carbon tax.
Chevron, based in San Ramon, California, fell 92 cents to $65.95 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading and has dropped 11 percent this year. Exxon Mobil, down 14 percent for the year, slid 83 cents to $69.05. ConocoPhillips fell 14 cents to $41.62, extending its year-to-date decline to 20 percent. Valero is down 24 percent for the year after dropping 21 cents to $16.48.
Reliance on Imports
Refiners and brokers already import 3.12 million barrels of gasoline, diesel and other fuels each day, enough to supply every car, truck, train, airplane, boat and oil-burning power plant in Africa, U.S. Energy Department figures showed.
Those cargoes are in addition to the 9.76 million barrels of raw crude delivered to U.S. ports daily to supply refineries and chemicals plants. Foreign shipments of crude, gasoline and other fuels provide 66 percent of the petroleum burned in the worldâ??s largest economy, according to the Energy Department.
Carbon prices will soar as U.S. refiners compete with each other and other industrial companies for a limited number of allowances, said Bill Durbin, head of carbon research and global energy markets at Wood Mackenzie.
Durbin, a former policy official in the Energy Department during the George H.W. Bush administration, said permit prices may top $100 a ton. Oil companies and their products emit more than 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year in the U.S., according to the Energy Department.
â??If you can import fuels without the same carbon costs as domestic refiners, you will have an advantage,â?? Durbin said. â??Does that open the door for offshore refiners? I think it does.â??
To contact the reporters on this story: Joe Carroll in Chicago at jcarroll8@bloomberg.net; Edward Klump in Houston at eklump@bloomberg.net.
Ben Stein was more exercised than I’ve ever seen him today talking about this. He hasn’t always had a problem with very highly progressive taxation either sometimes to my dismay. He was actually pissed. A real event for that guy.
I fucking hate this shit. I was listening to Monica Crowley who basically spelled it out for me on the radio, and I REALLY fucking hate this shit.
Please, someone explain to me why we are allowing this power and money grab to happen…
[quote]BluePfaltz wrote:
I fucking hate this shit. I was listening to Monica Crowley who basically spelled it out for me on the radio, and I REALLY fucking hate this shit.
Please, someone explain to me why we are allowing this power and money grab to happen…[/quote]
Well they have done a wonderful job brainwashing the majority of the public to care more about some pedophile singer, then how their society is headed to complete and utter socialism. The problem falls within everyone, for either not waking people up or allowing themselves to buy this false reality that they continue to present you with like everything is going to be OK because we have a black president (only 6% by the way).
So…Ron Paul 2012?
We were (well maybe not most of you) on the verge of Revolution…
Then we put a black man up.
Now we’re all docile and shit.
IM not a liberal or a conservative by the way, but I recognize a bullshit scam when I see it. This is a bullshit scam.
WHY cant we at least then expose it for what it is?
I only saw a mention of the bill once today on the news, and it was one of those: “Why are those evil nazi republicans trying to stop this bill that will save the world?” bullshit. However, it was mentioned that the bill might be tough sell in the Senate.
No one I have talked to knows anything about this, one of the largest tax increases in American history, and certainly the news media isn’t saying anything about it. It’s all: “we are going to be reducing carbon emissions to save the world! YAY OBAMA!”
HOPEANDCHANGEHOPEAND CHANGEHOPEANDCHANGE HOPEANDCHANGE HOPEANDCHANGE HOPEANDCHANGE HOPEANDCHANGE HOPEANDCHANGE HOPEANDCHANGE … …
[quote]lixy wrote:
So…Ron Paul 2012?[/quote]
You’d love that wouldn’t ya?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Can someone who DOES believe in human-caused, EPIC DOOM, global warming comment on cap-and-trade?
I’m saying this because it is quite obvious those who don’t believe in the above will obviously not support cap-and-trade. I’m interested if anyone who DOES believe the above dissents from the cap-and-trade support-orgy.
Before the Industrial Revolution, most children died before age 10, often of starvation. If industrial civilisation is evil, think of slouching in a mud hut, screeching at the demons who caused a flood to wash away all your crops. Science, medicine, and the very food we eat, are a result of a human mind thinking. These things are part and parcel of the Industrial Revolution. Capitalism is the only ‘ism’ that did most of us any good.
Now Nancy, Harry, Barack and Company, want to shut this down. They want to turn back the clock to when the rivers and air were pristene, and we had a life expectancy of about 35. By the way, old people couldn’t hunt anymore so got no food. Remnants show that many often gnawed through their own cheeks out of hunger.
I prefer pollution.
Isn’t it interesting how we are the ones that everybody ALWAYS comes to for help with EVERYTHING. I wonder how they think we got all those resources.[/quote]
Exactly. And I know this is way out there but Nietzsche’s concept of our morality was that the weak and lazy grasp at unselfishness so as to get the stronger/smarter/more ambitious to feed and support them. The origin of various moralities is an interesting topic, to me.
The fools thought they were voting for a Messiah. The folks in the middle hoped that maybe he’ll just be another Chigago gangster. Those of us in the ‘Crazy’ camp pointed to his terrorist buddies, his racist whackjob pastor, and his gangster buddies in Chi-town. We pointed out how George Soros put this devil in as POTUS, with a boatload of $$$$ and his Moveon.org criminal enterprise.
We were right. They are devils, all of them. Satan is running this country now.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Can someone who DOES believe in human-caused, EPIC DOOM, global warming comment on cap-and-trade?
I’m saying this because it is quite obvious those who don’t believe in the above will obviously not support cap-and-trade. I’m interested if anyone who DOES believe the above dissents from the cap-and-trade support-orgy.
[/quote]
Let us, you and I, assume that human-caused global warming exists.
Let us have cap-and-trade. Trade? This means that there is something of value to be traded.
Will there be a market in the excess caps? Will a company which burns less carbon than demanded then be able to sell its allotment?
If so, there will be a secondary market in carbon caps–options (calls and puts) and futures. (Check in on the Chicago Board of Trade or the Philadelphia Exchange in a few months.)
Well, all this makes sense on one condition, that the carbon caps, when purchased for a value, will be used.
How can carbon dioxide emissions be reduced if the caps are all to be used?
(Now the proponents of such a system say that it is already in use and working in the control of acid rain. I have not seen this verified.)
I am not convinced. Even if I were to believe in human-caused global warming, this is not a sufficient answer.
It only amounts to a tax on all human activity.
Perhaps a quick way of summarizing this, as well as many other recent things, is that today’s Democratic leadership operates under the assumption that Atlas has limitless blood for them to draw.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Perhaps a quick way of summarizing this, as well as many other recent things, is that today’s Democratic leadership operates under the assumption that Atlas has limitless blood for them to draw.
[/quote]
May I remind you that I suggested months ago that you live under the same illusion when you think that al Quaeda cannot bleed the US dry?
I think both sides operate under the assumption that there is enough to finish their pet projects but nothing else.
It will not work that way.
Al-Qaeda is unable to cost the amount of money that Obama spends, or to decrease American productivity the way that Obama can, e.g. with cap and trade and other higher tax rates and an overall punish-the-achievers method.
If al-Qaeda could cost anything like that amount, then I would agree with your point on that. But it’s off by a large factor – assuming no use of nuclear weapons or highly effective biological weapons on American soil, that is. Which I had not thought you were requiring for your thesis.