Comments on: More on Cap and Trade

By: Kellie

Kellie — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 22:10:38 +0000

Even though Deal isn’t an exciting candidate, I will say that I’ve never worried about how he’d vote which is a very good thing.

By: GOPGeorgia

GOPGeorgia — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 15:47:44 +0000

There are a great many issues like this where I have never been concerned how congressman Deal would vote. I’m just sayin.

By: Doug Deal

Doug Deal — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 23:41:11 +0000

I propose that we call this The George W Bush – Karl Rove Cap and Trade Bill of 2009. Those are, afterall, he people most responsible for enabling its passage.

At least they and their supporters got to bash gays for 8 years, which is more than enough compensation for destroying the country and handing the future to the Indians and the Chinese.

How about lets have a real primary in 2012 instead of a 2000 esque coronation.

By: Doug Deal

Doug Deal — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 23:21:33 +0000

Haha, Hannity not air something without checking facts? When has he started checking facts?

By: omp2010

omp2010 — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 23:14:49 +0000

I’ve talked to Deal today and this was an extreme case of bad information. I can’t believe Hannity would air something without checking his facts. Pisses me off.

Deal has always, and always will be AGAINST this kind of legislation.

By: Jade Morey

Jade Morey — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:05:53 +0000

Apparently Bishop isn’t keeping a tally as his offices are saying he’s already made up his mind.

By: yellowb

yellowb — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:49:28 +0000

Hannity had bad information. Deal was never going to vote for it.

By: Jade Morey

Jade Morey — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:46:23 +0000

We’re trying to call but either being hung up on or getting a busy signal. Hmm, should we consider this good or bad?

By: Jeremy Jones

Jeremy Jones — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:48:30 +0000

I just called Deal, he is voting no.

By: Kellie

Kellie — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:25:38 +0000

just got through. It wasn’t true. Good thing.

By: Kellie

Kellie — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:23:20 +0000

can’t get through. I guess he doesn’t really want to be Gov.

By: wahardage

wahardage — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:12:41 +0000

Sean Hannity just reported that Nathan Deal has switched and is planning to vote FOR the bill. Please call his offices.

By: Game Fan

Game Fan — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:04:20 +0000

But it still might be cheaper than a beef burrito.

“This cow fart tax shows how outrageous the whole global warming and climate change debate is,” Sensenbrenner said during an appearance on Fox News. “It might be more civilized. The EPA calls it digestive gases. We all call those farts.”
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/tag/cow-fart/

By: Justin Tomczak

Justin Tomczak — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:43:34 +0000

Done. Thanks Erick.

By: Doug Deal

Doug Deal — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:26:50 +0000

This goes well beyond tax. If people are going to fight it on a basis of whether it is a tax, they are going to lose. If they fight it on how it will hurt farmers, they will lose.

The scary part of the bill is the degree of control this gives the government over energy use in this country and the creation of programs that are a rent seekers wet dream. It is about control over you, me and everyone in the country. This should not just make the right cringe, but the left as well. Sadly, the left seems to base its support on an issue on whether or not an issue is disliked by the right and not whether or not they should be pro or con based on the merits.

Such is life with “team politics”.

By: Game Fan

Game Fan — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:57:42 +0000

Nothing is safe once these guys get some momentum going and start building their war chest. We could be talking about a $15 bean burrito. Which ties in with the whole “hot air” debate.

By: Game Fan

Game Fan — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:54:03 +0000

Politicians love cap and trade because they can claim to be taxing “polluters,” not workers. Hardly. Once the government creates a scarce new commodity — in this case the right to emit carbon — and then mandates that businesses buy it, the costs would inevitably be passed on to all consumers in the form of higher prices. Stating the obvious, Peter Orszag — now Mr. Obama’s budget director — told Congress last year that “Those price increases are essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123655590609066021.html

By: Game Fan

Game Fan — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:47:13 +0000

This is a typical “bottom up” vs. “top down” scenario or perhaps the centralizers vs. the decentralizers. The central planners vs. free market advocates. Your insider vs. the outsider. If you’re not on the corporate plantation then maybe you’re actually interested in some of these horror stories about what happened to some great technology and who shut it down, who bought the patent, which inventor decided to jump out a ten story window, ect…

By: Jane

Jane — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:30:54 +0000

Cap and trade will increase the cost of living in the USA. Anything that increases the cost of living increases poverty and the death brought by poverty. Hence, if the Black Caucus cared more about the poor than their White Elite Masters they would oppose this bill.

By: Goldwater Conservative

Goldwater Conservative — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:05:49 +0000

This is about sustainability, Bill.

For one, Barry would never have supported deregulating the energy industry to the point it has been. Now, things need fixed. Private ownership and operation are only as good as the savings they provide consumers. When those benefits stop and companies work in unison to maximize profits on the backs of the consumer base…we no longer have an economic system that benefits the public. Put whatever label you want on it, BP making $80billion a quarter in profits while, simultaneously, creating instability in the oil market forcing us to pay $2.50 a gallon is not conducive to a well oiled (pardoned the pun) economic system.

Game fan, do you really think entreprenuers are making the decisions in these energy companies. New technology? If the US government provided a tenth of the support for new technology that they provided the old energy companies…we would all be driving hybrid vehicles and oil would be a dead source of energy.

Not doing something is going to be the big problem. You think oil prices and energy are expenisive now? Just wait. When Iran has control of all Persian oil…then oil is going to be expensive. Cap and trade is a push toward new technology. Why are we still using natural gas? Because it requires little investment and keeps profits high. Why not support a sytem, such as cap and trade, that will encourage investment in nuclear technology? Because neil boortz and rush limbaugh say no?

There is a reason why we have new technology…why the radio the light bulb and the internet are what they are. we did not listen to conservatives. Had we, street lights would still be powered by oil…because government contracts would not have been issued and investment would not have been made. People would still use fax machines and get their news a day late.

Enron fiasco…who let that one happen?