Bison Dan Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 The heritage foundation...now there is a site that is just dripping with credibility! I'm sure they have no agenda in this! LOL! Here's a decent article on some of the compromise going on as the bill passes its way through the congress and senate: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aWrfyhptR.RM How can any rational person support any of the bills coming out of this congress when hardly any congressman has read or can even understand what's in the bill? What's the rush? Why don't we have a debate on it?
Goon Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 How can any rational person support any of the bills coming out of this congress when hardly any congressman has read or can even understand what's in the bill? What's the rush? Why don't we have a debate on it? I heard on T.V. it's 1200 pages long and no one has read it yet. Also they added an amendment of 300 pages to it. They are rushing to get it through before the American people wake up and realize they are having socialism shoved down our throats.
GeauxSioux Posted June 29, 2009 Author Posted June 29, 2009 The heritage foundation...now there is a site that is just dripping with credibility! I'm sure they have no agenda in this! LOL! Here's a decent article on some of the compromise going on as the bill passes its way through the congress and senate: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aWrfyhptR.RM Hey, wait a minute, I thought this thread wasn't about that "red herring" Global Warming, yet it is in the piece that you cited.... The American Clean Energy and Security Act calls for the U.S. to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions, linked by scientists to global warming, 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. More than 70 percent of the allowances would initially be given away. I love this one.... “The oil industry got fewer free permits because lawmakers believe these firms can pass the relatively low cost to their consumers without affecting their bottom line.” So the oil company is going to take it in the shorts without passing in to consumers? The gist of this piece is that deals are being made for this to happen, between congress, the utilities and the oil companies. Who pays for it? The consumers!!
petey23 Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 Supposedly, Congressmen like Pomeroy were provided political cover by being able to vote against the Waxman/Markey bill as legislators from "safe" districts whose constituents don't care about the bill's negative impact on coal producing states nor on the consumer who'll ultimately be the one getting screwed, provided the needed votes to get to 219. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Pomeroy voted "no" but now he can throw his arms up in the air and say, "hey, I voted against it, I did my part." knowing full well that the bill already had garnered enough votes to pass anyway. Correct. Pomeroy should not only have voted against this farce, he should have done everything within his power to stop it...and the same goes for Dorgan and Conrad who are supposed to be powerful members of the Senate. A vote in favor of this travesty on America would not only be a good reason to vote them out in the next election but in my opinion would be a good enough reason to actually recall them from DC.
Goon Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 Correct. Pomeroy should not only have voted against this farce, he should have done everything within his power to stop it...and the same goes for Dorgan and Conrad who are supposed to be powerful members of the Senate. A vote in favor of this travesty on America would not only be a good reason to vote them out in the next election but in my opinion would be a good enough reason to actually recall them from DC. Word is that Senater Byron "Comb Over" Dorgan will vote against it because he is runnign for re-election in a few years and expect Kent "Cournty Wide" Conrad to vote for it because he has a great time before he is up for re-election. ND residents we need to flood our leaders phones.
wyomingsiouxfan Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 SiouxSports used to be a fun website to read and discuss topics on. The past couple of days with this "Cap and Trade" bull, this site has turned into the comments section of the Herald, Tribune, Forum....what have you. I liked knowing that I could come to SiouxSports to read about my Fighting Sioux. If I wanted to read this crap I'd go to the Political Forum at Rube Chat. Have fun, GO SIOUX!
MplsBison Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 Hey, wait a minute, I thought this thread wasn't about that "red herring" Global Warming, yet it is in the piece that you cited.... I love this one.... So the oil company is going to take it in the shorts without passing in to consumers? The gist of this piece is that deals are being made for this to happen, between congress, the utilities and the oil companies. Who pays for it? The consumers!! Correct, this is about reducing carbon emissions, which is a problem on it's face. No need to add nonense about global warming to it. Only companies that are emitting excess carbon will see their prices increase. Consumers will naturally flock to green companies whose prices won't increase.
GeauxSioux Posted June 29, 2009 Author Posted June 29, 2009 SiouxSports used to be a fun website to read and discuss topics on. The past couple of days with this "Cap and Trade" bull, this site has turned into the comments section of the Herald, Tribune, Forum....what have you. I liked knowing that I could come to SiouxSports to read about my Fighting Sioux. If I wanted to read this crap I'd go to the Political Forum at Rube Chat. Have fun, GO SIOUX! Point taken. With one last plea to all to contact your senators on this issue, I will drop it. Besides, I think MPLS just likes being the antagonist. Go Sioux!!!
choyt3 Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 SiouxSports used to be a fun website to read and discuss topics on. The past couple of days with this "Cap and Trade" bull, this site has turned into the comments section of the Herald, Tribune, Forum....what have you. I liked knowing that I could come to SiouxSports to read about my Fighting Sioux. If I wanted to read this crap I'd go to the Political Forum at Rube Chat. Have fun, GO SIOUX! Best post of the thread.
Shawn-O Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 SiouxSports used to be a fun website to read and discuss topics on. The past couple of days with this "Cap and Trade" bull, this site has turned into the comments section of the Herald, Tribune, Forum....what have you. I liked knowing that I could come to SiouxSports to read about my Fighting Sioux. If I wanted to read this crap I'd go to the Political Forum at Rube Chat. Have fun, GO SIOUX! The topic has huge ramifications on the energy industry in North Dakota and is a valid topic of conversation in the Community forum , IMO. And the beauty of it is that you can continue to get Fighting Sioux coverage in the sports forums without having to click the mouse button on Cap and Trade.
Goon Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 The topic has huge ramifications on the energy industry in North Dakota and is a valid topic of conversation in the Community forum , IMO. And the beauty of it is that you can continue to get Fighting Sioux coverage in the sports forums without having to click the mouse button on Cap and Trade. It has a lot of ramifications for ND because it is a coal and gas producing state.
dead_rabbit Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 Correct, this is about reducing carbon emissions, which is a problem on it's face. No need to add nonense about global warming to it. Only companies that are emitting excess carbon will see their prices increase. Consumers will naturally flock to green companies whose prices won't increase. What is the point of limiting CO2 output then??? According to the Bloomberg article that you linked, C02 permits will generate $100 billion/year by 2020. Who do you think pays for these permits? It's not the Exxons and the coal power plants, it's you and me. If Coca Cola is charged more for their sugar by their supplier, they don't eat the higher prices, they're passed on to their consumers.
Goon Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 What is the point of limiting CO2 output then??? According to the Bloomberg article that you linked, C02 permits will generate $100 billion/year by 2020. Who do you think pays for these permits? It's not the Exxons and the coal power plants, it's you and me. If Coca Cola is charged more for their sugar by their supplier, they don't eat the higher prices, they're passed on to their consumers. This piece kind of hits on this theme (click here)
Godsmack Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB1245...OTgyNzk5Wj.html An interesting Op Ed piece from the Wall St. Journal today. According to this journalist, cap-and-trade in Europe is frought with all kinds of politics, bribery, and back-room dealings and has led to negligable improvements for the environment.
Goon Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB1245...OTgyNzk5Wj.html An interesting Op Ed piece from the Wall St. Journal today. According to this journalist, cap-and-trade in Europe is frought with all kinds of politics, bribery, and back-room dealings and has led to negligable improvements for the environment. Al Gore and GE which owns NBC have their fingers prints all over this.
dead_rabbit Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB1245...OTgyNzk5Wj.html An interesting Op Ed piece from the Wall St. Journal today. According to this journalist, cap-and-trade in Europe is frought with all kinds of politics, bribery, and back-room dealings and has led to negligable improvements for the environment. How'd that Kyoto protocol work out for everyone? In case people aren't aware; it went about as well as Rosemary Kennedy's lobotomy.
MplsBison Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 What is the point of limiting CO2 output then??? According to the Bloomberg article that you linked, C02 permits will generate $100 billion/year by 2020. Who do you think pays for these permits? It's not the Exxons and the coal power plants, it's you and me. If Coca Cola is charged more for their sugar by their supplier, they don't eat the higher prices, they're passed on to their consumers. There is no such thing as simply "passing on costs to the consumer" like you want to pretend there is. That's because companies don't just increase their prices when their competitors aren't. The companies that invest in processes and methods that emit less carbon into the environment will be rewarded. Those that don't will suffer. Consumers are the ultimate winners in all situations.
MplsBison Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB1245...OTgyNzk5Wj.html An interesting Op Ed piece from the Wall St. Journal today. According to this journalist, cap-and-trade in Europe is frought with all kinds of politics, bribery, and back-room dealings and has led to negligable improvements for the environment. That's because the WSJ is a direct to print *attempt* at high-brow journalism by the GOP. Whatever they want to see is what gets printed. It's really no more than a trumped up version of Fox News, just like Acura is to Honda.
dead_rabbit Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 There is no such thing as simply "passing on costs to the consumer" like you want to pretend there is. That's because companies don't just increase their prices when their competitors aren't. The companies that invest in processes and methods that emit less carbon into the environment will be rewarded. Those that don't will suffer. Consumers are the ultimate winners in all situations. Just because you say so, doesn't make it so. It's not like people have a choice from who they buy their power from. Person A might live in a part of a state that is powered by a coal burning plant that captures it's carbon. Person B might live in a different part of the state that purchases his/her energy from a coal plant that releases it's carbon right into the atmosphere. Obviously Person B will be paying much more for energy the Person A. Other then moving or reducing energy costs, there's not much person B can do. Once again, what is the reason fore capping carbon emissions?
The Sicatoka Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 There is no such thing as simply "passing on costs to the consumer" like you want to pretend there is. That's because companies don't just increase their prices when their competitors aren't. The companies that invest in processes and methods that emit less carbon into the environment will be rewarded. Those that don't will suffer. Consumers are the ultimate winners in all situations. A doctor is charged $xxx for their medical license which gives them status to work in a state. And they, as a service provider, don't pass that along to their consumers? And they're required to carry malpractice insurance. I'm sure they don't pass that cost along either. Nobody can be that naive. It's the cost of doing business and that cost is always built in to the price and passed along. Period.
Goon Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 There is no such thing as simply "passing on costs to the consumer" like you want to pretend there is. That's because companies don't just increase their prices when their competitors aren't. The companies that invest in processes and methods that emit less carbon into the environment will be rewarded. Those that don't will suffer. Consumers are the ultimate winners in all situations. You have no idea what your talking about.
Bison Dan Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 You have no idea what your talking about. I hate to say it but the first 2 sentences are close to being true. The "market" determines what prices are set at. Where his reasoning goes in the toilet is the last 2 statements. The market is now world wide and this bill will put us at a competiltive disadvantage with most countries (China and India). So what does it do? It puts additional costs on US businesses which in turn will HURT American consumers & business. Some cost can be passed on but you can only pass on so much until your cost of goods are too high conpared to your competition (world). The American consumer will suffer, American businesses will suffer, and America as a whole will suffer. For what? Phony science?
MplsBison Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 A doctor is charged $xxx for their medical license which gives them status to work in a state. And they, as a service provider, don't pass that along to their consumers? And they're required to carry malpractice insurance. I'm sure they don't pass that cost along either. Nobody can be that naive. It's the cost of doing business and that cost is always built in to the price and passed along. Period. Here's the true analogy: doctor 1 is slapped with a new fee because his methods are not compliant with the new standard. He attempts to pass that cost to his customers by increasing his costs. The customers then leave doctor 1 and go to doctor 2 who did not increase his costs since he did not get the new fee because his methods are compliant. Doctor 1 is forced to upgrade his methods to become compliant so that he can return to being cost-competitive with doctor 2.
Goon Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 I hate to say it but the first 2 sentences are close to being true. The "market" determines what prices are set at. Where his reasoning goes in the toilet is the last 2 statements. The market is now world wide and this bill will put us at a competiltive disadvantage with most countries (China and India). So what does it do? It puts additional costs on US businesses which in turn will HURT American consumers & business. Some cost can be passed on but you can only pass on so much until your cost of goods are too high conpared to your competition (world). The American consumer will suffer, American businesses will suffer, and America as a whole will suffer. For what? Phony science? I think we are agreeing that this tax and cap will kill the American economy, it is horrible and based on a false science. I am not sure why MplsBison Fan thinks this is a good thing? The Chinese and the people of India are laughing at us.
Oxbow6 Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 Here's the true analogy: doctor 1 is slapped with a new fee because his methods are not compliant with the new standard. He attempts to pass that cost to his customers by increasing his costs. The customers then leave doctor 1 and go to doctor 2 who did not increase his costs since he did not get the new fee because his methods are compliant. Doctor 1 is forced to upgrade his methods to become compliant so that he can return to being cost-competitive with doctor 2. I haven't responeded to your twised take on most things but here is the true analogy: 1) I'm a Dr. and your "true anaolgy" above is so flawed... 2) But you have your head to far up your arse to understand it..."methods"? How about "standard of care". "Not compliant"? Or do you mean malpractice? Your analogy above doesn't hold any water whatsoever. Medicine isn't like banking...there are no "fees". Compentence to patients thru standard of care and fulfilling insurance regulations, mostly government imposed, are in a nutshell what your analogy should have been. I can bill whatever I want but contractually thru 3rd party insurance or Medicare/Medicaid, THEY tell me what they'll pay me.
Recommended Posts