| CLiMatE cHaNgE Bill Passes hOuSE !; Onto the Senate | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 26 2009, 11:17 AM (1,661 Views) | |
| Lodge Pro 345 | Jun 26 2009, 11:17 AM Post #1 |
|
. The Climate Change Bill passed the House. Even though most of them admitted to not reading the bill. Update: Radio reports are saying it passed, but I think they may be anticipating it passing. Minor changes were made to agricultural items that brought as many as 30 Dems over to voting for it (or supporting it), reportedly. Think Big Taxes! |
![]() |
|
| Lodge Pro 345 | Jun 26 2009, 11:23 AM Post #2 |
|
. Yeah, basically the Democrats are celebrating because they've lined up the votes. 15 mintues ago Steny Hoyer made an announcement that it's going to pass as he has 218 votes signed off as obligated to vote for it. So, we are being told, it's going to pass the House. The WH is celebrating too. . |
![]() |
|
| wingedwheel | Jun 26 2009, 11:42 AM Post #3 |
|
Not Pictured Above
|
Anyone watching the markets? Looks like they are reacting to this. DOW is down 52. |
![]() |
|
| genny6348 | Jun 26 2009, 12:18 PM Post #4 |
|
Genny6348
|
Boy, does that suck. |
![]() |
|
| wingedwheel | Jun 26 2009, 12:29 PM Post #5 |
|
Not Pictured Above
|
How are states that use coal and oil to produce electricity supposed to provide enough energy for their citizens if no one is allowed to build nuclear power plants? Solar panels and hot air isn't going to do it. And you know environmentalist won't allow anymore hydroelectric plants. |
![]() |
|
| retiredLEO | Jun 26 2009, 12:37 PM Post #6 |
|
I was just watching C-Span and they were still debating. I think the vote you are talking about a test that I believe was 217 to 205, please correct me if I am wrong. |
![]() |
|
| wingedwheel | Jun 26 2009, 12:48 PM Post #7 |
|
Not Pictured Above
|
They are debating it right now. It hasn't passed yet. But it will and I hope all those Hopium addicts enjoy their fn' change! |
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Jun 26 2009, 12:51 PM Post #8 |
|
June 26, 2009 The Economic Impact of the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade Bill by Ben Lieberman Testimony before the Senate Republican Conference The Heritage Foundation June 22, 2009 "...As you know, the House is currently considering this bill, which is similar to but has more stringent targets and timetables than the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill that was rejected by the Senate last June. It is clear that cap-and-trade is very expensive and amounts to nothing more than an energy tax in disguise. After all, when you sweep aside all the complexities of how cap and trade operates--and make no mistake, this is the most convoluted attempt at economic central planning this nation has ever attempted--the bottom line is that cap and trade works by raising the cost of energy high enough so that individuals and businesses are forced to use less of it. Inflicting economic pain is what this is all about. That is how the ever-tightening emissions targets will be met. The only entities directly regulated by Waxman-Markey would be the electric utilities, oil refiners, natural gas producers, and some manufacturers that produce energy on site. So, the good news for the rest of us--homeowners, car owners, small-business owners, farmers--is that we won't be directly regulated under this bill. The bad news is that nearly all the costs will get passed on to us anyway. What are those costs? According to the analysis we conducted at The Heritage Foundation, which is attached to my written statement, the higher energy costs kick in as soon as the bill's provisions take effect in 2012. For a household of four, energy costs go up $436 that year, and they eventually reach $1,241 in 2035 and average $829 annually over that span. Electricity costs go up 90 percent by 2035, gasoline by 58 percent, and natural gas by 55 percent by 2035. The cumulative higher energy costs for a family of four by then will be nearly $20,000. But direct energy costs are only part of the consumer impact. Nearly everything goes up, since higher energy costs raise production costs. If you look at the total cost of Waxman-Markey, it works out to an average of $2,979 annually from 2012-2035 for a household of four. By 2035 alone, the total cost is over $4,600. Beyond the cost impact on individuals and households, Waxman-Markey also affects employment, and especially employment in the manufacturing sector. We estimate job losses averaging 1,145,000 at any given time from 2012-2035. And note that those are net job losses, after the much-hyped green jobs are taken into account. Some of the lost jobs will be destroyed entirely, while others will be outsourced to nations like China and India that have repeatedly stated that they'll never hamper their own economic growth with energy-cost boosting global warming measures like Waxman-Markey. Since farming is energy intensive, that sector will be particularly hard-hit. Higher gasoline and diesel fuel costs, higher electricity costs, and higher natural gas-derived fertilizer costs all erode farm profits, which are expected to drop by 28 percent in 2012 and average 57 percent lower through 2035. As with American manufacturers, Waxman-Markey also puts American farmers at a global disadvantage, as other food-exporting nations would have no comparable energy-price raising measures in place. Overall, Waxman-Markey reduces gross domestic product by an average of $393 billion annually between 2012 and 2035, and cumulatively by $9.4 trillion. In other words, the nation will be $9.4 trillion poorer with Waxman-Markey than without it...snipped" http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/tst062609a.cfm The enemy is within. Edited by Baldo, Jun 26 2009, 12:52 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Kerri P. | Jun 26 2009, 12:56 PM Post #9 |
|
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31565446/ns/us_news-environment Controversial climate bill wins House test vote Obama touts clean energy jobs; Republicans say it's too costly updated 1 hour, 51 minutes ago WASHINGTON - With a full House vote set for Friday afternoon, Democratic leaders narrowly won an important test vote on legislation to combat global warming, curb oil imports and usher in an era of cleaner, but more expensive, energy. To Republican opponents, the bill is essentially the largest tax increase ever. The House narrowly approved a rule for debating the bill, setting up a vote later on Friday. The test vote was 217-205. Thirty Democrats defected. Floor statements and three hours of speeches on the bill were setting the stage for a vote on one of the most significant environmental bills in history: a sprawling measure that aims to wean industry off of carbon-emitting fuels tied to global warming. snip... |
![]() |
|
| genny6348 | Jun 26 2009, 01:02 PM Post #10 |
|
Genny6348
|
Greenpeace is against this, geez Greenpeace Opposes Waxman-Markey
Edited by genny6348, Jun 26 2009, 01:04 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| retiredLEO | Jun 26 2009, 01:23 PM Post #11 |
|
Rush just stated that the democrats are 12 votes short of passage, with 17 undecided. |
![]() |
|
| wingedwheel | Jun 26 2009, 02:02 PM Post #12 |
|
Not Pictured Above
|
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/26/cap-and-ta-liveblog-pt-ii-pay-attention-to-house-floor-games/
|
![]() |
|
| I'mstillaRebel | Jun 26 2009, 02:13 PM Post #13 |
|
This monstrosity of a tax increase is being debated/voted on as we speak--and ALL the networks are giving us wall to wall coverage of-------Michael Jackson!@#$%^!@#$% |
![]() |
|
| Kerri P. | Jun 26 2009, 02:31 PM Post #14 |
|
The reason the news media isn't covering it, is because they don't want us to see how Congress is going to ram this POS cap and trade [tax bill] down our throats. They are nothing but a bunch of federally elected Nifongs.
Edited by Kerri P., Jun 26 2009, 02:32 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Lodge Pro 345 | Jun 26 2009, 03:03 PM Post #15 |
|
. I HOPE you are right. This is the House vote. Was Rush talking about the House vote? Because the Dems and the WH have been calling media outlets and crowing, they have been calling Victory. I know the vote had not actually taken place (in the house) but that the Dems were saying publicly they locked up the votes with minor changes to agricultural stuff. The Dems would be pretty foolish to take to the airwaves and announce victory without the Votes (again, I'm only talking about the House). . |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |






3:24 AM Jul 11