We have argued at this site ad nausea about global warming, Al Gore’s get rich scheme while terrorizing our children. Climate change has been around forever we only wish politicians would go away, they certainly are clueless on climate discussion and are being force fed by lobbyists whose interests are less environmental and more money motivated. 
Senator’s called last week’s proposed vote on a global warming debate a “political watershed” and fortunately it’s water under the bridge. It only took three days for “cap and trade” to crash and burn.
Democrats failed to secure a majority, much less the 60 Senators necessary, for a procedural vote last Friday morning that would have allowed the real work of amending the bill to begin.
Harry Reid, Senate Majority “Leader” called the bill, “the most critical issue of our time.” Mr. Reid also claims we lost the war in Iraq so in his feeble mind the war on terrorism has never been an issue, critical or otherwise but politicians can control climate change.
Let’s not get too excited for “cap and trade” has gone to the repair shop to fight another day, possibly after Republicans lose more seats in Congress this fall. Democrats can all continue to blame George W. Bush for perceived global warming while the RINO’s blame the President for getting ousted from their cushy jobs.
Republicans grew some courage and methodically dismantled the cost and complexity of “cap and trade,” while Democrats were seeking $6.7 trillion in new tax revenues and carbon welfare handouts, which would inflict collateral damage on the wider economy in lost GDP and higher prices up and down the energy chain.
There was no suggestion that more refineries, nuclear power and more domestic drilling would help our economy, eventually lower fuel prices and gain some energy independence for the US.
“I resent the Senator from Tennessee saying our bill is a slush fund,” Ms. Boxer (D-CA) said referring to freshman GOP Senator Bob Corker who viewed the current bill as frivolous, dishonest or both. Good for Mr. Corker and his honesty!
Mr. Corker called the bill “the mother of all earmarks” and “a huge unnecessary transference of wealth.”
The Left-Wing Nut Ms. Boxer retorted that the bill was really “a huge tax cut for the American people” and “will not increase gas prices.” Ms. Boxer is offering swampland in Arizona if you’re interested.
A quick lesson in economics will explain that “cap and trade” is designed to raise energy costs thus providing more money to energy companies to invest in exploration and force behavior changes on consumers, which they feel is needed for a less carbon-intensive economy.
Liberals are always attempting to control our behavior by taking our money to spend on things they are clueless about. While dressing down oil executives for being thieves Democrats want to raise costs so those same folks have more money to invest with. Oil’s big complaint goes back to too few refineries and domestic exploration regulations that stop them from investing more into US energy.
Higher energy costs are a direct by-product of political action, or inaction, and market forces. Democrats and their environmentalist groups are strangling oil companies and keeping them from providing more domestic energy but Liberals are constantly taxing and spending to satisfy the habits of their sugar daddy’s known as lobbyists.
Some Democrats who we almost always disagree with gave us a reason to side with them.
Senator’s Sherrod Brown (OH), Carl Levin (MI), Jay Rockefeller (WV) and Jim Webb (VA), said they could not support cap and trade “in its current form” because it would cause “undue hardship on our states, key industrial sectors and consumers.”
Barack Hussein Obama favored the bill, didn’t vote for it and then blamed Republicans for its failure. In reality Mr. Obama and his opponent John McCain didn’t wish to get caught voting for higher energy costs during an election year.
Imagine that!
Powered by A Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
Copyright © 2012 Liberally Conservative™ and Liberally Conservative.com™ are Registered Trademarks - All Rights Reserved
June 9th, 2008 at 11:54 am
You’re absolutely right. Obama wants a global warming bill, yet failed to vote for it. So is his nomination for the Democrats more important than global warming? From his actions, I’d say yes.
June 9th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
“Republicans grew some courage and methodically dismantled the cost and complexity of “cap and trade,” while Democrats were seeking $6.7 trillion in new tax revenues and carbon welfare handouts, which would inflict collateral damage on the wider economy in lost GDP and higher prices up and down the energy chain.
“A quick lesson in economics will explain that “cap and trade” is designed to raise energy costs thus providing more money to energy companies to invest in exploration and force behavior changes on consumers, which they feel is needed for a less carbon-intensive economy.”
Could you please give me (maybe in a short post) the quick lesson in economics which you believe will prove all the claims you make here?
“Senator’s Sherrod Brown (OH), Carl Levin (MI), Jay Rockefeller (WV) and Jim Webb (VA), said they could not support cap and trade “in its current form” because it would cause “undue hardship on our states, key industrial sectors and consumers.”
Thank you for informing me how some of the democratic law makers felt about the subject bill. Jim Web is one of my state’s senators and I hold many of his views in high regard, in particular his fight to pass a good, strong GI education bill. If you had been fair and balanced in the way you treated all the law makers mentioned, it would have been a good post.
June 9th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Further taxing, directly and then indirectly with higher costs of energy is poor economics.
We are sitting on energy and have the technology to improve our energy capabilities without further taxing but Liberals don’t understand economics.
I didn’t say “democratic law makers”, I said “Democrats”, there is nothing Democratic about a Democrat.
Forcing behavior with laws effecting consumers beyond law and order is Socialism, which isn’t using Monetarist theory of economics. For a lesson on that I suggest you seek out the idea channel and Milton Friedman. Here is a link: Free to Choose
Further, I would suggest listening to Rush Limbaugh, he does provide very good Conservative talking points and describes modest economics that follows Adam Smith and Milton Friedman style capitalism and Monetarist based economics and viewpoints of Edmund Burke.
Knowledge is power, education creates knowledge if done effectively, so empower yourself.
Sorry you like Mr. Webb, I view him as a blustering blow gut with little knowledge based on realism. For instance, the pathetic GI Bill discourages making the military a career and encourages 3-years and out, which doesn’t provide the incentive for such a juicy reward. The bill is not cost-effective, only sugar-coated. Indeed!
June 9th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
“I didn’t say “democratic law makers”, I said “Democrats”, there is nothing Democratic about a Democrat.”
From The Diary of a Convolutionist
If Democrats can’t be democratic,
Then Liberals can’t be liberatic.
If Conservatives are truly democratic,
Then why are they so autocratic?
I somtimes force myself to stomach short periods of Rush’s entertainment, after which I either throw up or take a nap.
“Knowledge is power, education creates knowledge if done effectively, so empower yourself.”
Well said, so I return the favor: Knowledge is power, education creates knowledge if done effectively, so empower yourself.
What if losses in re-enlistments caused by the Webb bill are offset by gains in new enlistments? This will increase the number of young people who serve their country (a very good thing, I beleve) and provide a larger number of young college-educated citizens for America’s employment markets (a good, I believe). Would you oppose these outcomes?
June 9th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
“What if losses are offset by gains.” Is this Al Gore and my fuzzy math lesson?
I suppose getting an MBA from Northwestern University qualifies me for some empowerment.
Including my effective ability to give a speech I’m more qualified to discuss business and economics than Barack Hussein Obama.
Producing a larger number of college graduates with a bigger GI bill, maybe, but the purpose with a huge incentive is not to make it a giveaway, it doesn’t fit the supply and demand model.
Appealing to the military with benefits while partially defunding the troops at war seems like Democrat Socialism to me. The point of a big GI Bill is first to create a base of career soldiers not a welfare system for 3-year and out people looking for a freebie.
And……you did say “democratic law makers”…here is your quote, “Thank you for informing me how some of the democratic law makers…”
Bact to economics let’s look at Obamanomics, which is changing daily.
June 9th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Go Take a Look:
The CONGRESSSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE study of the impact of the Webb GI education bill shows that the net result, in terms of military prsonnel, would be a wash: Losses in re-enlistments would be offset by new enlistments. Young people would join up to serve their country – to take advantage of a free education after they leave the military service. McCain has simply cherry-picked the conclusions of the report; where have we seen that before?
I congratulate you; you are empowered, indeed! I have no such lofty credentials; does it count anything that I know somebody that graduated from Wharton? My only degree is in Physic and Math and my only career is that of a research engineer with NASA.
Pardon me; I thought GI benefits were provided as a way to thank and compensate those who serve our country honorably.
June 9th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
I wasn’t bragging only pointing out something. Knowing someone “with” is not the same as being “without.”
However, we can self-educate and I’m sure you’ve done well.
Congressional Budget Office, please, more tepid analysis.
The Department of Defense said this bill was a no-brainer for non-passage and Mr. Gates insists it’s too much for just three years. Yes, we get something for three years of service, just not the Treasury Department.
How many times do people whine they joined the service for the benefits but never intended to stay in the Armed Forces? The reserves is a perfect example of this.
The keyword is “incentive” so people will make military careers or stay for 4-6-9 years. You can get quite the education online while in service too. My son is now living proof of that.
June 9th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
What started out as a comment on Cap and Trade turned into a discussion about the pros and cons of the Webb GI Education Bill. Global warning and such is not one of my primary interest, even though I did work in the field of atmospheric sciences my last few years at NASA. Specifically, I worked on Earth-orbiting spacecraft missions that involved making Earth radiation measurements – the primary purpose of which was to measure the Earth radiation budget (not the financial type). I was not a scientist, but worked mostly with the spacecraft and instruments, and it was a lot of fun. One of our spacecraft (called ERBE) was launched on the Shuttle Challenger in 1984, two years before the the Challenger blew up during launch in 1986. Sally Ride, the first women in space was on that mission and manipulated the arm that released our spacecraft from the shuttle.
I’m sure that your MBA degree opened the doors to some exciting work opportunities, and I hope you’ll share a tad of your experiences.
I’v enjoyed our lively exchange, and I thank you for your thoughtful comments. You’ve given me some food for thought, and although I don’t agree with some of your views, you’ve defended them well and stoutly – and I respect your right to hold and express them. I’ve read several of your posts and find some of them interesting, often provocative – so you’ll likely be hearing from me again soon.
For now, I’ll bow out – leaving you with the last word. So long and thanks again.
June 9th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
A very interesting and rewarding career Mr. Weaver.
I would hope you would discuss some of the other posts so I can see how you feel about Obama and his associations and why you might think he is qualified as leader of the free world.
Hope to see here again, again.
June 10th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Until these white-collar economic terrorists are made to account for their fraud (e.g. putting Al Gore in jail) and the blood on their hands (i.e. outlawing DDT), their enablers in Congress continue to be emboldened. This is no longer about science since the “Man-made Global Warming ‘Theory’” has been disproven. This is now bordering on a crime against humanity, and should be treated as such.