This just passed congress. Unless the Republicans in the Senate can stop it, we are shafted!
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2454/show
Look for Walmart to close the rest of it's US labs as they shift more lens manufacturing to Mexico. It is likely that more businesses and industry will be moving off shore as well. What choice do they have.
What a great why to jump start a struggling economy!
Business run on energy. Tax the energy so business charge more.
Consumers use energy to survive. Tax the energy so consumers pay more.
Goods cost more, people buy less, businesses sell less, they lay more people off. More people have to go on wel....OH NOW I GET IT!!!
Yeah! Great idea!!:cheers:
I feel the recession ending already. (Not to mention the long term effects on our economy.) They're still trying to tax the farting cows as well. These guys are brilliant.
Ophthalmic Optician, Society to Advance Opticianry
It just goes to show you that you can rally support for just about anything these days. Can you believe the stupidity. How do you prepare your children and grandchildren for this brave new world?
That's the wrong end of the cow. According to the latest research, 95% of methane emissions from livestock comes from the front end of the animal--from "belching" or "burping". And if the figures in this report are accurate, worldwide, livestock are responsible for almost 20 percent of the total problem, as far as climate-warming gases going into the atmosphere:Originally Posted by Johns
So what's my position? I have to admit that I eat more than enough beef and have no wish to go vegetarian or go without beef. But I think that a "greenhouse" tax on agricultural livestock could be a good thing--and is probably inevitable in the long run.The U.N. accuses our bovine buddies of producing 18 percent of the world's greenhouse-gas emissions — more than planes, trains and automobiles combined.
Looking far enough down the road, I think the beef industry may have to learn to grow beef without growing the cattle. Sound crazy? I look to genetic engineering to come up with ways to grow beef artificially. In the brave new world of the future, beef steaks will be harvested like vegetables from some kind of giant chemical vat instead of being butchered from slaughtered cattle.
The "beef cattle" of the future..
I don't know about milk. I guess if they can grow beef without cattle in the future, they will also be able to "gen up" milk without dairy cows. And cow leather? You can fill in the dots . . .
Sooner or later we'll get "there".
Last edited by rinselberg; 06-27-2009 at 02:07 AM.
Rib eyes are getting hard to find, even for $6.99 per lb. I guess they are exporting them to countries that can afford them.
I'm so afraid that you are serious.
This once great nation is disintegrating before our very eyes.
You want to tax the people that are making your food!!!???? Are you really serious? Why don't we just all move into freaking caves?
Maybe we can retroactively tax the dinosaurs... they're the one's that started all this.
Ophthalmic Optician, Society to Advance Opticianry
Congress Phone List Too late for this, it's in the Senate now.
News Articles:
Cap-and-Tax Fiction - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html
Biggest Tax Increase EVER -
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32001
Obama's Policy To Create Largest Tax -
http://americaswatchtower.com/2009/02/25/o...ase-in-history/
Cap & Trade Largest Tax -
http://thedailyblogster.blogspot.com/2009/...ncrease-in.html
Largest Tax Ever Cap-and-Trade -
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/D...aspx?id=468158
Cap-And-Trade Biggest Tax In History -
http://www.americansforprosperity.org/0310...ease-us-history
Biggest Tax Increase In History -
http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/06/25/...ase-in-history/
Congress Doesn't Read Bills -
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/24/po...0.shtml?tag=pop
__________________
Congress Doesn't Read Bills - http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/24/po...0.shtml?tag=pop
Bill text:
GovTrack - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454
Open Congress - http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2454/show
Liberty of Congress - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.2454:
What bothers me most about exporting jobs away from America is the fact that the nations we send most of the business to do not follow the same stringent health and safety standards that we do, this is why we end up with dozens of re-calls every year. We can’t even get toys painted red without poison in them. So we lose jobs, further negatively impact our economy, and attack ourselves with the pestilence of disease and injury that comes from manufactures who don’t care how they treat their people or ours, and we wonder why things don’t get better.
The problem with our economic system has been the early baby-boomers, you know the spoiled brats born in the late 40’s-early 60’s, who have elevated greed to a virtue. No longer does the future have any relevance because the world is viewed one quarter at a time.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." Jonathan Swift
How do you prepare your children and grandchildren for a brave new world like this?
But I bet their economy is great!Linfen (China)
Potential population affected: 200,000 Type of pollutants: Fly-ash, carbon monoxide, Nitrogen oxides, PM-2.5, PM-10, Sulfur dioxide, volatile organic compounds, arsenic, lead.
Site description: When asked to comment on the environmental conditions of Linfen, one environmental expert quipped, "If you have a grudge against someone, let this guy become a permanent citizen of Linfen! Why? For punishment!" Shanxi Province is considered to be the heart of China's enormous and expanding coal industry, providing about two thirds of the nation's energy. Within it, Linfen has been identified as one of Shanxi's most polluted cities with residents claiming that they literally choke on coal dust in the evenings, according to a BBC report.
China's urgent need for coal has led to the development of hundreds of often illegal and unregulated coal mines, steel factories and tar refineries which have diverted water and parched the land making farming in the province nearly impossible. Water is so tightly rationed that even the provincial capital receives water for only a few hours each day.
The Annual Report on Environmental Management and Comprehensive Improvement in Key Cities for Environmental Protection in 2003, by the State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA), indicated that Linfen is the city with the worst air quality in China. The high levels of pollution are taking a serious toll on the health of the Linfen's inhabitants. Local clinics are seeing growing cases of bronchitis, pneumonia, and lung cancer. Lead poisoning was also seen at very high rates in Chinese children in the Shanxi Province. One resident was quoted in the BBC report claiming, "I feel like my throat is very dry, and the stuff coming out of my lungs is black." The severity of the air pollution in the cities of Shanxi is indicated by the fact that the levels of SO2 and other particulates in the air exceed many times over the standards set by the World Health Organization. A growing number of resident deaths in recent years have been directly linked to this intense pollution.
Another epidemic found in this province is Arsenicosis, an environmental chemical disease caused by drinking elevated concentrations of arsenic found in water. Chronic exposure to this toxic chemical result in skin lesions, peripheral vascular disease, hypertension, blackfoot disease, and high risk of cancers. One study of Shanxi's well water published in Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, found the rate of unsafe well water in the province to be 52 per cent - an alarming statistic. Worrying data such as this has caused the Chinese government to openly admit that one in five of its citizens lack safe drinking water.
Compounding the pollution problem is the city's economic dependence on the coal, steel, and tar industries as well as China's need for these resources in keeping with its rapidly growing economy. As with many environmental problems in China, strong resistance from business interests and corrupt officials has made improvement difficult to imagine in a short timeframe.
It may not interest you to know that "cap and trade" has a Republican provenance, has been used before, and is regarded as having been successful in that effort:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/us..._r=1&th&emc=th
Of course, a straightforward carbon-emissions tax would be preferable, but because of the relentless anti-tax rhetoric from the right wing for going-on-thirty-years now (which, judging from the posts here, has succeeded in convincing many people that there's no such thing as a good tax), politicians are reluctant to advocate the obvious approach, favoring instead the one they see as doable and relatively safe.
I give my Congressman, John Larson, credit for having the courage to propose a carbon tax. Despite his relatively high perch in the Democratic caucus, he couldn't make any headway with it.
Guess that is why they all voted in favor.
Back when it was their idea, the House GOP members approved it by 153-20; in the Senate, by 39-5.
There is nothing in your link to convince me that what you are sying is true. Read the story at the link. Even a Washington post article can not convince me the GOP would ever impose such a tax. It is a very bad idea , no?
Here's the names of those we may be able to influence to reverse their support of HR2454.
Mary Bono (CA) 202-225-5330/225-2961
bono.house.gov/Contact_Mary/
Mike Castle (DE) 202-225-4165/225-2291
castle.house.gov/Contact
Kirk Mark (IL) 202-225-4835/225-0837
house.gov/kirk/zipauth.shtml
Lance Leonard (NJ) 202-225-5361/225-9460
lance.house.gov/?sectionid=48§iontree=3,48
Lobiondo Frank (NJ) 202-225-6572/225-3318
house.gov/lobiondo/IMA/issue.htm
McHugh John (NY) 202-225-4611/226-0621
mchugh.house.gov/zipauth.aspx
Reichart Dave (WA) 202-225-7761/225-4282 reichert.house.gov/Contact/ZipAuth.htm
Smith Chris (NJ) 202-225-3765/225-7768
chrissmith.house.gov/zipauth.html
And the link to see who voted for/against:
clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll477.xml
Please help by contacting those above & voicing your opinion re:HR2454. You need to include your address or they will discard your post & your vote will not be counted. Good Luck & thanks for being concerned.
Well, I suppose I don't always believe what the Washington Post says when it conflicts with my preconceived ideas, either. But my link pointed to a New York Times article, and I always believe them.
I apologize for not providing links to the sources supporting the statements I made. If it wasn't clear to you, I was referring to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
Here's the text of the bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...mp/~c101e6xyQ0::
Here are the votes:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1990/roll525.xml
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=2&vote=00324
As far as the recent bill is concerned, I haven't read sufficient analyses to decide whether it's a good bill or a bad bill (as I said, I would have preferred a direct tax), but increasing the cost of carbon emissions is a very good idea.
And, FYI, there was a time when the argument between Republicans and Democrats would have consisted of the Republicans arguing for the use of tax policy to encourage or discourage certain behaviors, and the Democrats arguing for direct regulation instead. Since becoming the tax cut channel, starting back in the 1980's, the GOP has largely deprived itself of that kind of tool; they should be thankful that the Democrats have picked up on it.
You might want to provide a list of Senators for people to write, rather than Congressmen, since the House has already voted on this bill. Of course, the final version will differ if and when it comes out of conference, and the House will have another opportunity to vote on something, which may or may not resemble the bill recently passed out of the House.
I disagree with the premise that a new tax on any newly discovered problem, concocted or real, is every an efficacious way to address it. Mobilizing the private sector to address problems is an excellent way for the public to democratically vet there relative priority. Any dictate from our “leaders” that has, as part of its solution, a diversion of money from the direct control of the earner to a bureaucrat is, in my view, horribly misguided at best, and most likely disingenuous to an arrogant level.
Each time we increase the government’s size through increased taxation we limit the ability of the functioning and productive parts of society, workers and industry, to supply further taxing potential through growth. The government needs to have some sense of control and learn to prioritize, just like the rest of us, and use an understood, limited amount of resources, to work as a focused effort.
When the government, insert the names of each politically elected and appointed member of our government, gains a new revenue source it has already expanded its size to absorb that increase. This means there is not, nor will there ever be, a reason to solve anything. They will not stop the various taxes when whatever they claimed was the cause has been addressed unless they have a new taxing idea to regain that lost ground.
Look at the federal excise tax on tires, for example, it was in full force and affect well into the 1980’s. A government instituted tax to help with the war effort, yes that’s right World War II, that was mandating strain on the budgets of working Americans, for a war that ended some forty years earlier. The pattern is well established. They will not be finished until they have it all. Nothing lasts forever, not even this republic.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." Jonathan Swift
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks