moonbattery.gif


« If Only Roman Polanski Were a Catholic Priest | Main | ACORN Founder Seems Bummed About Failed Plot to Kill Republicans »


September 29, 2009

Cap and Trade Will Spread the Wealth Around

Obama famously told Joe the Plumber he wanted to "spread the wealth around." Now, we know what he meant by that.

According to the Institute for Energy Research, the Cap and Trade bill currently before the Senate would redistribute $14 Billion from the bottom 80% of income earners to the top 20% of income earners.

The Waxman-Markey bill distributes roughly $778 billion in free emission allowances to various politically favored industries and others between 2012 and 2020, at the direct expense of non-favored industries and U.S. consumers. The ultimate impact of this giveaway of emission allowances is to transform the already regressive gross burden of a cap-and-trade system into a highly regressive federal climate policy that effectively redistributes tens of billions of dollars per year from low- and middle-income households to high-income shareholders.

Translation, the bill is set up to increase taxes on the middle-class and transfer those taxes to politically-connected industries.

Also, we recently learned that under Obama, all income levels are declining, but the middle-class is hardest hit. And Obama proposes to transfer even more middle-class wealth to the upper quintile under Cap and Trade.

BTW, in the Least Believable Lie of the Week, John Kerry claims he has no idea what the expression "Cap and Trade" means. He claims the phrase confuses Americans, so he wants his Cap and Trade bill renamed a "Pollution Reduction" bill. The Democrats used a similar line when they voted against posting the contents of the Health Care Bill online so Americans could read it before they voted on it. They said it would "confuse" people. In both cases, what they actually meant was... people were figuring out what they were up to and didn't like it.

Posted by Gregory of Yardale at September 29, 2009 10:17 AM

Comments

"under Obama, the rich are getting richer and the middle class is getting poorer. "

That had better be a joke - between the Bush tax cuts and the economic clusterfuck to the poorhouse that Obama inherited, you have to be missing key brain lobes if you think this has anything at all to do with Obama. (Plus you are factually inaccurate - the rich are NOT getting richer, it is the difference between the two the is (still) growing). Are we learning yet?

As far as "he wants his Cap and Trade bill renamed a "Pollution Reduction" bill" - kinda like W called unconstitutional, warrantless wiretapping of American citizens the "Patriot Act"? Politics, retard. Everyone does it. But no crocodile tears from your side when it was your pet hick making the stupid calls...

Posted by: Anonymous at September 29, 2009 10:41 AM

I claim that Kerry is just plain stoopid. Co2 is not a pollutant. It is a very necessary trace gas. Have you ever heard of Carbon based life forms?

Posted by: Stephana at September 29, 2009 10:46 AM

Technically, all income levels are declining under Obama. The middle class is being hit the hardest, and the rich not so much (if you read the link). While it does reflect 2008 figures, it would be difficult to believe the middle class is any better off since the unemployment situation has worsened considerable since then. I have amended the post accordingly.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at September 29, 2009 10:49 AM

hey anymouse - dudya know that the Bush patriot Act expires in Dec.???
didya know that the Obma administration has asked congress to extend it 'cause Obama wants the powers to eavesdrop that the patriot gives the president??

didya? huh? huh?

Posted by: blue at September 29, 2009 11:13 AM

and in fairness, here are the links to published news articles that say that Obma has asked for the Patriot Act to be extended

http://www.ombwatch.org/node/10430

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/23/AR2009092303907.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/us/16brfs-PATRIOTACTPR_BRF.html

the last one from the NYTimes uses small words....

Posted by: blue at September 29, 2009 11:18 AM

As for the bill, you don't need a think tank to tell you what the consequences would be. I live in an area that is not wealthy. When gas hit $4/gal, there were people who had to decide whether to eat, or to gas up to get to work. It's these people who would be hit the hardest, and pile on top of that, the cost of food would soar.
But, liberals love any bill that has a D attached to it. Look at the DUmp monkeys. Barely one or two of them have a pot to piss in, but they loved Cap & Trade, because of the attached "D." DUmbasses.

Posted by: Karin at September 29, 2009 11:21 AM

CAP & TRADE just more liberal socialism to financialy ruin america as all liberal reptles want

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at September 29, 2009 11:30 AM

come on blue, im certain you are capable of reading...

What did I say about the Patriot Act? That is was MISLEADINGLY NAMED. The point? EVERYONE DOES IT. This is what we call "politics". Which has exactly... nothing to do with December, in case anyone is keeping score. So, once again... only when it is the "other team" doing it do you decide it is eeeeeviiiil. When the hick-in-chief came back from clearing bruch long enough to sign stupid things, they always had names designed to make people think they were benign.

So... ready to recant this post as a lost cause and try another pointless whine-du-jour?

Posted by: Anonymous at September 29, 2009 11:45 AM

Hey anon what is a bruch? Is that more "politics" as well?

Posted by: Farmer Ted at September 29, 2009 11:49 AM

Republicans never insulted the intelligence of the voters by claiming the Patriot Act was too "confusing" for them.

Anon is just trying to run a diversion from the fact that Cap and Trade will rob from the middle class and give to the rich, while doing nothing to affect climate change.

Posted by: V the K at September 29, 2009 11:51 AM

stephana - you're right, CO2 itself is not a harmful chemical. it's only when levels of it surpass a threshold that it becomes dangerous. for example, if you're sitting in a small enclosed room with poor ventilation, you'll be able to breath perfectly fine for a while. but over time you start to breath in the oxygen in the room and breath out CO2 to the point where levels of C02 surpass levels of O2, and you suffocate due to a lack of oxygen.

CO2 exists in the atmosphere, and it's levels have fluctuated over the years, but levels are higher than anytime in recent history. these levels result in the trapping of heat in our atmosphere which produces global warming.

one more thing: saying that CO2 is safe because we're carbon-based lifeforms isn't quite accurate. Carbon monoxide (CO) is highly poisonous to humans. CO binds with the iron in our blood, preventing O2 from being able to bind with the iron, resulting in death.

Posted by: not rocket science at September 29, 2009 12:00 PM

"Republicans never insulted the intelligence of the voters by claiming the Patriot Act was too "confusing" for them. "

Nope... they just didn't want anyone to know anything that it said... That's WAAAAY better. Thanks for clearing that up. (You know that you people, right here are the stupid people who can't be trusted to actually comprehend these things, right? And that you are proving it, quite adroitly, as we speak?)

Dumbass people....

Posted by: Anonymous at September 29, 2009 12:02 PM

Looking at CO2 ONLY is simplistic. It doesnt explain why temperatures since 2000 had leveled off then recently in the last 2 years begun to decline. Why havent all these heat trapping gasses kept the temperatures rising? Most of the CO2 groupies ignore things like THE SUN, wobbles in the Earth orbit, short and long cycles, cosmic rays, ocean currents, ect. Then there is the largest greenhouse gas - WATER VAPOR. Maybe we should build huge atmospheric condensers to suck half of it out of the air and sequester it underground? Or break it apart into Hydrogen and Oxygen?

Why were temperatures so warm 1000 years ago? Were the Vikings building factories and driving SUV's? It was so warm back then Viking colonists in Greenland had farms and raised livestock. Cant do that today - without greenhouses.

Most of the socalled computer models are heavily manipulated using "correction factors" designed to produce riduculous levels of warming. Things like the famous hockey stick chart have been discredited.

Posted by: Bad Robot at September 29, 2009 12:31 PM

not rocket science,

"you suffocate due to a lack of oxygen."

Oh pulleeeze. We will never, ever see levels of CO2 so high as to where we would suffocate. Nope. Not even after we burn the remaining 80% of our fossil fuel reserves.

"it's only when levels of it surpass a threshold that it becomes dangerous."

CO2 levels during the Cambrian period were around 7000 ppm. Guess what. Life was thriving. But no worries, we won't even come close to those levels either.

"these levels result in the trapping of heat"

It's physically impossible to "trap" heat. I know it's not rocket science and all, but you might want consider a different way of explaining your theory.

Posted by: RICH at September 29, 2009 12:48 PM

Anon didn't like the Patriot Act because he didn't like the government knowing about his anti-American activities.

Oh wait: if Anon had nothing to hide then Anon had nothing to worry about with the Patriot Act. And I bet 50 bucks that Anon never once lost ANY of his freedoms during the past 8 years.

Too bad that Anon has zero capacity for gratitude to the Bush2 administration for keeping his sorry ass safe to call the 900 numbers or look at pron online...

Posted by: Nunya at September 29, 2009 12:57 PM

what's simplistic is stating that temperature levels since 200 have leveled off and in the last 2 years begun to decline. temperature levels will fluctuate from year to year, it's long-term trends you need to look at. if total global temperature drops one year by .1 degrees C, but over the last 110 years has increased by .8 degrees C, you still have an increasing trend in temperature.

water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas, followed by CO2, methane, and a few other gasses. the problem again, is the concentration of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere. since the industrial revolution, CO2 levels have increased 36% and methane levels have risen by 146%. this increase throws off the balance of greenhouse gasses (which are important for keeping the earth at a stable temperature - no one wants to eliminate CO2 from the atmosphere, but reduce the amount human activity produces and bring down overall levels to a reasonable rate) resulting in the global warming effect.

it should be noted that levels of CO2 fluctuates gradually over time, but never in history have we seen the levels of CO2 rise so rapidly (the time frame of which just happens to coincide with the industrial revolution)

in regards to viking colonists, it was a harsh climate for them to settle in, and they quickly depleted the natural resources in their colonies. some colonies still exist today, but they're only along the coastline, just like the original viking settlements were

Posted by: not rocket science at September 29, 2009 1:04 PM

i wasn't saying that human's will suffocate due to increased levels of CO2 and a lack of oxygen in the atmosphere, i was trying to argue that CO2 isn't simply harmless because we as humans produce it, but rather it's the concentration of it that is harmfu

Posted by: not rocket science at September 29, 2009 1:08 PM

oops, should be "humans will." i always throw in the apostrophe when i shouldn't.

Posted by: not rocket science at September 29, 2009 1:09 PM

Umm rocketman have you considered that man's contribution to the entire world's atmosphere is miniscule compared to what nature itself does. We can't control the weather and shouldn't attempt to. Everyone agress that we should look after our natural resourses but don't expect people to go back to living in caves or accept their government dismantelling the economy for a figment of some chicken little's imagination.

Posted by: Farmer Ted at September 29, 2009 1:24 PM

The oddly named "Patriot Act" was nothing to progressive hero Woodrow Wilson's Sedition Act, under which hundreds of thousands were in fact imprisoned. A lot like when Bush was president, well, except for all those imprisonments. You have to do things sometimes when you're at war.

Now, carbon dioxide doesn't cause warming. It follows warming. However, they don't correlate in a ppm vs degree way; there's noise in both. It is such a trace gas now, and only a tiny portion of it is emitted by human activity, that there is no possibility of human emission of carbon dioxide to cause a measurable change in temperature.

Temperatures change. Where I'm sitting was under a sheet of ice as recently as 20000 years ago. Why isn't it any more? Climate change. Whose fault was it? Nobody. Pull your head out of manbearpig's ass and take a breath.

Posted by: Mr Evilwrench at September 29, 2009 1:29 PM

Anonymous, you purveyor of sophistry you.
Your argument was basically the overdone kneejerk accusation of hypocrisy. You did not condemn much less criticise renaming Cap and Trade.
And you did it in a tirade of splenetic name calling, successfully diverting attention from the Institute's opinion that under Cap and Trade the wealth gap will increase.
You were smoked out.
Don't try to portray yourself as even-handed. It won't work.

Posted by: Jim at September 29, 2009 1:37 PM

@farmer ted: if everyone agrees that we should look after our natural resources, then why aren't we? i'm not advocating living in a cave or going back to prehistoric ages. i live in dc and am perfectly happy being in a major city. we can keep modern conveniences while still limiting our impact. i got rid of my car and take the metro or bus to where i need to go. i use a computer (obviously), but don't let it idle for days at a time when it's not in use. i use cfl bulbs in my house instead of incandescent ones. the list goes on and on. i can't bring my impact down to zero, but i can still try and make a difference. if everyone were to, the results would be an incredible savings to the environment.

@mr. evilwrench: you argue that "temperatures change. Where I'm sitting was under a sheet of ice as recently as 20000 years ago. Why isn't it any more? Climate change. Whose fault was it? Nobody. Pull your head out of manbearpig's ass and take a breath."

correct! climates do change, as i mentioned in a previous post. but it took 20000 years for that ice sheet to melt away, not 200. there's a major difference.

Posted by: not rocket science at September 29, 2009 1:55 PM

I have noted it's kind of futile to confront AGW true believers with actual facts.

Posted by: V the K at September 29, 2009 2:05 PM

rocket,

"temperature levels will fluctuate"

You should have stopped there.

"important for keeping the earth at a stable temperature"

The earths is stable. It's the alarmists that are not.

"but reduce the amount human activity"

Why don't you start by shutting off your computer and going to bed?

Posted by: RICH at September 29, 2009 2:08 PM

"carbon dioxide... follows warming."

I absolutely agree Mr. Evilwrench.

Posted by: RICH at September 29, 2009 2:22 PM

thanks for the contribution to the discussion RICH. going to bed does sounds nice though, it's been a long day at work. and with that, i bid you all adieu

Posted by: not rocket science at September 29, 2009 2:24 PM

Um, it took considerably less than 20000 years. Maybe not quite as little as 200, but not much more, either. It's been largely non-glacial here for a very long time compared to the IPCC's hysteria-mongering. Try again, or rather don't, you just dig yourself deeper.

Posted by: Mr Evilwrench at September 29, 2009 2:26 PM

At the end of the day, that giant fusion reactor in the middle of the solar system has more influence on climate than all the world's SUVs and coal-fired power plants combined.

Posted by: V the K at September 29, 2009 2:48 PM

Patriots,

The mood over global warming has changed (just like the climate). We are winning! But we must not relent, not for a second. The greatness of this nation is depending upon our resolve.

In case you missed it, a Pew research poll ranked global warming [dead last] among a list of 20 top priorities for 2009.

http://people-press.org/report/485/economy-top-policy-priority

Let's not allow a minority to threaten the future of American prosperity. Keep up the fight!

Posted by: RICH at September 29, 2009 3:54 PM

"Translation, the bill is set up to increase taxes on the middle-class and transfer those taxes to politically-connected industries."

Translation:

Fascism.

We already live in a fascist state, this is just more icing on the cake.

23.7 trillion looted by the banks and counting. Don't be surprised if another massive bailout package is issued to political insiders.

Posted by: Michael Suede at September 29, 2009 4:05 PM

What rocketman forgets to add is that he gave up his car and reduced his (giggle) carbon footprint VOLUNTARILY. Also what he fails to add is alarmists want those kind of choices made mandatory. Big difference rocketman.

Posted by: Farmer Ted at September 29, 2009 4:46 PM

Hey ANONYMOUS, Hopey McChange said that he was going to FIX "Bush's ecconomic screw-ups". How's that working out now that he and his MASTERS in Congress rammed trillions of dollars (That we DON'T have) down the toilet?

Posted by: KHarn at September 29, 2009 6:03 PM

Posted by: not real science at September 29, 2009 1:04 PM- "... temperature levels will fluctuate from year to year, it's long-term trends you need to look at."

Long term trends in the PAST. The Super Mario Kart computer games tweaked for optimal thrills by the Enviro-Stalinist, Eco-fruits are glorified fiction. Even the models produced for the past, with actual known geologic and cryo data, are very broad, educated guesses, with wide margins of error.


Posted by: not real science at September 29, 2009 1:04 PM- "...if total global temperature drops one year by .1 degrees C, but over the last 110 years has increased by .8 degrees C, you still have an increasing trend in temperature."

So what? The climate does what it will. Mankind, and industry has nothing to do with it. In fact, we couldn't "change climate", with "industrial" Co2 output, even if we tried, really, really hard.


Posted by: not real science at September 29, 2009 1:04 PM- "...water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas, followed by CO2, methane, and a few other gasses. the problem again, is the concentration of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere. since the industrial revolution, CO2 levels have increased 36% and methane levels have risen by 146%... it should be noted that levels of CO2 fluctuates gradually over time, but never in history have we seen the levels of CO2 rise so rapidly (the time frame of which just happens to coincide with the industrial revolution)..."

Since the Industrial Revolution, you say? The largest eruptions, that is those that produced the greatest volume of discharged gas (including Co2 and Methane) in recorded history, were:

Laki in 1783.
Tambora in 1815.
Krakatoa in 1883.
Pinatubo in 1995.

The only eruption that can be compared in scale, prior to Laki, was at Santorini, in 1470 BC. The last 2 centuries have seen a significant surge in vulcanism, including lesser volcano eruptions, plus increased oceanic rift activity. No super-eruptions after 1470 BC, until 1783 AD, followed by 3 more, up to the 1990's.

What on Earth could possibly be producing all that Co2 and Methane?


Posted by: not real science at September 29, 2009 1:04 PM- "...no one wants to eliminate CO2 from the atmosphere, but reduce the amount human activity produces and bring down overall levels to a reasonable rate"

Yes, "a reasonable rate" for the purposes of establishing global communist-feudalism:

QUOTE
"...It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.

New enemies therefore have to be identified. New strategies imagined, new weapons devised. The common enemy of humanity is man.

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.

The old democracies have functioned reasonably well over the last 200 years, but they appear now to be in a phase of complacent stagnation with little evidence of real leadership and innovation

Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead..."
END QUOTE
(UN report- "The First Global Revolution: A Report by The Council of The Club of Rome", by A.King and B.Schneider, Orient Longman Inc., pub. 1993)

Posted by: chairman soetoro's oprichniki at September 29, 2009 6:06 PM

TO ADD-

The comparison of volcanic eruptions are subject to variables. However the VEI is most concerned with discharge of solid matter and gas. There HAVE been instances of colossal eruptions (VEI 6 or above) since Santorini in 1470 BC. However, examination of these reveals an even more prominent chronological discrepancy, than the short list:

Santorini 1470 BC
White River 1200 BC approx
Okmok 400 BC
Ambrym 100 AD
Llopango 450 AD
Laki 934 AD
Tianchi 970 AD
Kuwae 1452 AD
Huaynaputina 1600 AD

Then...

Laki 1783 AD
Krakatoa 1883 AD
Santa Maria 1902 AD
Novarupta 1912 AD
Pinatubo 1991 AD(not 1995)

Posted by: chairman soetoro's oprichniki at September 29, 2009 6:41 PM

Nope... they just didn't want anyone to know anything that it said

Anyone who can read can read the text of PATRIOT Act as enacted. Never hidden, never obfuscated. Out in the open for all to read. That's all we're asking the various health care bills. Next bullshit point?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at September 29, 2009 7:52 PM

Its all about a tax on our air, its away to make you pay for being alive, but what if you don't pay the tax is the government going to shut down a person air? and will it be like obamas islam style health care plan but if the government stop your air will your body be reused for a political feast at the former white house? after all obama is from africa!

Posted by: Fred Dawes at September 29, 2009 8:35 PM

TO ADD (again) correction- since the Thera/Santorini eruption of 1470 to 1630 BC approx.

Santorini 1470-1630 BC approx ... VEI 6/7
White River 1200 BC approx ... VEI 6
Okmok 400 BC ... VEI 6
Ambrym 100 AD ... VEI 6
Hatepe 186 AD ... VEI 7
Llopango 450 AD ... VEI 6
Laki 934 AD ... VEI 6
Tianchi 970 AD ... VEI 6
Kuwae 1452 AD ... VEI 6
Huaynaputina 1600 AD ... VEI 6

Then...

Laki 1783 AD ... VEI 6
Tambora 1815 AD ... VEI 7
Krakatoa 1883 AD ... VEI 6
Santa Maria 1902 AD ... VEI 6
Novarupta 1912 AD ... VEI 6
Pinatubo 1991 AD(not 1995)... VEI 6


Mt. St. Helens in 1980 was a VEI 5. VEI 6 is equal to 10x Mt.St. Helens. VEI 7 is equal to 100x Mt. St. Helens. The frequency of these events shows periods of centuries to around 100 years between colossal eruptions. The shortest, before the approximate advent of the Industrial Revolution, being just over 60 years in the 10th century.

However, from the the 1783 Laki eruption, VEI 6 events come in just 32 years, 68 years, 19 years, 10 years and 81 years. With Tambora releasing the most, in 1815, since 186 AD.

Posted by: chairman soetoro's oprichniki at September 29, 2009 9:50 PM

Why are the dumbest comments here always posted under "anonymous?" Are these moonbats too cowardly even to pick a moniker?

Pfff. Course, I also spend some time wondering why these types bother to post on conservative blogs at all.

Posted by: Cylar at September 29, 2009 11:53 PM

in regards to viking colonists, it was a harsh climate for them to settle in, and they quickly depleted the natural resources in their colonies. some colonies still exist today, but they're only along the coastline, just like the original viking settlements were

We don't know where all the colonies were, because some of them are probably under a mile of ice today.

Besides, I've yet to hear any MMGW proponent explain to me what caused the temperature to fluctuate so wildly during the Middle Ages to start with, or for that matter, what drove the glaciers back north at the end of the last Ice Age. Minnesota and other northern states have thousands of lakes that were dug out by glaciers, yet that land isn't covered by ice today.

I'd also like to hear a MMGW explain to me why Mars is getting warmer at the time the Earth is.

Posted by: Cylar at September 29, 2009 11:58 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)