Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
House Passes Energy Bill.  
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1448 times:

Since this is only the House version of the energy bill, and we don't yet know how it will look when it emerges from conference, I'm not going to pass judgment one way or another as to whether it leads us in the right or wrong direction.

One provision is no surprise, but one provision is eye-opening.

Quote:
Declaring a new direction in energy policy, the House on Saturday approved $16 billion in taxes on oil companies, while providing billions of dollars in tax breaks and incentives for renewable energy and conservation efforts.



In other words, the democrats are following their base instincts - take from a group they dislike, and give to a group they like. How typically democratic. Yes, the republicans do the same thing. Just goes to show once again that both parties are thoroughly corrupt.

Quote:
On one of the most contentious and heavily lobbied issues, the House voted to require investor-owned electric utilities nationwide to generate at least 15 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources such as wind or biofuels.
The utilities and business interests had argued aggressively against the federal renewables mandate, saying it would raise electricity prices in regions of the country that do not have abundant wind energy. But environmentalists said the requirement will spur investments in renewable fuels and help address global warming as utilities use less coal.
"This will save consumers money," said Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., the provision's co-sponsor, maintaining utilities will have to use less high-priced natural gas. He noted that nearly half the states already have a renewable energy mandate for utilities, and if utilities can't find enough renewable they can meet part of the requirement through power conservation measures.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070805/D8QQNQM00.html

In other words, if you can't find enough renewable energy, you'll just have to do without.

Somehow, I don't that's going to play well with the folks at home.

25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1445 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Thread starter):
In other words, the democrats are following their base instincts - take from a group they dislike, and give to a group they like.

Will the Dems take responsibility when the companies RAISE the price of gas, then?

Quoting Halls120 (Thread starter):
Somehow, I don't that's going to play well with the folks at home.

For those who lack knowledge of the matter, they won't realize how damaging this legislation is.


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1431 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 1):
Quoting Halls120 (Thread starter):In other words, the democrats are following their base instincts - take from a group they dislike, and give to a group they like.
Will the Dems take responsibility when the companies RAISE the price of gas, then?

Quoting Halls120 (Thread starter):Somehow, I don't that's going to play well with the folks at home.
For those who lack knowledge of the matter, they won't realize how damaging this legislation is.

I can see it now. If Rep. Udall's intent is taken at face value, utilities that cannot find enough "green" energy will, instead of burning "evil" natural gas, be forced to produce less power. Which in turn will invariably mean rolling blackouts for the customers of these utilities.

Why can't Congress come up with a less heavy-handed method of altering our energy policies?


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1426 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 2):
Why can't Congress come up with a less heavy-handed method of altering our energy policies?

Because politics works sometimes on 'doing anything', w/o taking into account the effects that their legislation will have. And then you have the lack of financial knowledge and their effects than most people have. I recall many years ago when an ex-friend justified shoplifting, using the excuse that the companies 'wrote it off'. I then corrected him that the companies raised their price by 20% to mitigate their losses.

Or how about this one, Halls? Damn those big oil companies, some say, w/o realizing how many investors, including state retirement systems, pensions, etc. depend on their oil company dividend income for their members. Even here, when PG&E went bankrupt, I had to remind a friend that a lot of elderly were very hurt, as utilities were known (till then) for providing a steady dividend income.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 4, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1421 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Thread starter):
In other words, the democrats are following their base instincts - take from a group they dislike, and give to a group they like. How typically democratic. Yes, the republicans do the same thing. Just goes to show once again that both parties are thoroughly corrupt.

Oh, boo-hoo...!  Yeah sure

Taxing the waste and resulting damage of limited fossil fuels and boosting their replacement with sustainable sources is now an evil partisan plot proving that its proponents are corrupt? And that in the face of open collusion with the oil companies on the part of the current administration?

Corruption needs deep pockets and the will to use them to bend the democratic process. That the oil companies have a long track record of that and that there's no even remotely comparable threat from the other side simply adds to the hilarity of your accusation.

But I'm sure Dick Cheney will give you a pat on the back for the attempt...!  crazy 


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 5, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1416 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 3):
Or how about this one, Halls? Damn those big oil companies, some say, w/o realizing how many investors, including state retirement systems, pensions, etc. depend on their oil company dividend income for their members. Even here, when PG&E went bankrupt, I had to remind a friend that a lot of elderly were very hurt, as utilities were known (till then) for providing a steady dividend income.

If you're entrusting your retirement assets to fund managers who can't see the signs of strategic market shifts, you should better have a second option available just in case...


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1407 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 4):
But I'm sure Dick Cheney will give you a pat on the back for the attempt...!

Somehow, I just knew that Klaus would be the first one to ignore the part of my post where I stated it was too soon to make conclusions as to whether the bill was good or bad, and that I hold both parties in equal contempt.

We need a knee-jerk smiley.......


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29690 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1405 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 1):
Will the Dems take responsibility when the companies RAISE the price of gas, then?

Course not....

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 1):
For those who lack knowledge of the matter, they won't realize how damaging this legislation is.

And a hell of a lot of peole lake knowledge of the matter.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 8, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1392 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 6):
We need a knee-jerk smiley.......

It would have been perfect as a response to your own post.


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1390 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 8):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 6):
We need a knee-jerk smiley.......

It would have been perfect as a response to your own post.

I see - I announce I'm withholding judgment, but my post is a knee-jerk response.  rotfl 

So how about the announced part of the legislation that could result in energy cutbacks. Do you think that will be wildly popular?


User currently offlineAC773 From Canada, joined Nov 2005, 1730 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1385 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Thread starter):
In other words, the democrats are following their base instincts - take from a group they dislike, and give to a group they like. How typically democratic. Yes, the republicans do the same thing. Just goes to show once again that both parties are thoroughly corrupt.

Yes, because of all the money-shoveling organizations in Washington, no one's in quite as deep with under-the-table kickbacks and bribes as the environmental lobby.  crazy 

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 2):
Why can't Congress come up with a less heavy-handed method of altering our energy policies?

What would you suggest?



Better to be nouveau than never to have been riche at all.
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 11, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1370 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 9):
I see - I announce I'm withholding judgment, but my post is a knee-jerk response.



Quoting Halls120 (Thread starter):
In other words, the democrats are following their base instincts - take from a group they dislike, and give to a group they like. How typically democratic.

Avoid any contact with the actual issue at all cost and perform a superficial knee-jerk instead. Right?  eyebrow 


User currently offlineAirTranTUS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1361 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 4):
Oh, boo-hoo...!

So corruption is OK then? That was the point of that paragraph.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 1):
Will the Dems take responsibility when the companies RAISE the price of gas, then?

I doubt it. No matter what type of tax it is, per gallon or as a percent or earnings, the companies will raise the price so their profit remains the same.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 13, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1355 times:

Quoting AirTranTUS (Reply 12):
So corruption is OK then? That was the point of that paragraph.

No. But in crass contrast to the unscrupulous use of money and power by the oil industry there is no indication I'm aware of (or that Halls provided above) that there was anybody willing to offer in the sustainable direction.

So the allegation of corruption in the direction of unpopular, expensive, but still necessary decisions is disingenuous at best and a silly knee-jerk smear attempt at worst.


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1350 times:

Quoting AC773 (Reply 10):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 2):Why can't Congress come up with a less heavy-handed method of altering our energy policies?
What would you suggest?

¥ gradually increase fuel efficiency standards for all motor vehicles.
¥ promote greater use of wind power
¥ promote greater use of nuclear power
¥ maximize production from existing oil and gas wells
¥ adopt a market-based system for trading emissions for the four major electric generation emission pollutants -- sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury
¥ Set a national goal of 100,000 new clean megawatts or "negawatts" of power by 2020 to spur development of new efficiency and renewable technologies.
¥ promote "smart" building-control technologies, "green designs," and time-varying electric prices that help customers reduce power
¥ provide tax incentives for efficient new buildings and equipment
¥ Use market-friendly policy tools to accelerate the introduction and use of energy technologies, including eventually mandating that only Energy Star appliances can be sold and used.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 11):
Quoting Halls120 (Thread starter):In other words, the democrats are following their base instincts - take from a group they dislike, and give to a group they like. How typically democratic.
Avoid any contact with the actual issue at all cost and perform a superficial knee-jerk instead. Right?

Wow. I guess reading comprehension isn't high on your list of priorities tonight.

I specifically said I was withholding comment on the bill because it wasn't final yet.

And if my evaluation of how the democrats behave in general is so wrong, how about showing me how that is so?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 13):
So the allegation of corruption in the direction of unpopular, expensive, but still necessary decisions is disingenuous at best and a silly knee-jerk smear attempt at worst.

I'll ask the question again, Klaus. How about the announced part of the legislation that could result in energy cutbacks. Do you think that will be wildly popular?

You can either discuss the issues, or continue with the lame personal attacks. Your call.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 15, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1345 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 14):
And if my evaluation of how the democrats behave in general is so wrong, how about showing me how that is so?

You were immediately jumping to the conclusion that the only possible explanation for a sustainable energy strategy would have to be corruption.

Drawing inevitable conclusions from an increasingly problematic dependency on oil would of course be entirely out of the question - both the oil industry and Dick Cheney say so, so it has to be the truth!  crazy   hypnotized 


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1339 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 15):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 14):And if my evaluation of how the democrats behave in general is so wrong, how about showing me how that is so?
You were immediately jumping to the conclusion that the only possible explanation for a sustainable energy strategy would have to be corruption.

No, that would be YOUR conclusion, not mine. My comment was a general condemnation on the way democrats - and republicans - behave when they are in power.

I see you still don't want to answer my question about the announced part of the legislation that could result in energy cutbacks. Do you think that will be wildly popular?

No comment about what I consider to be elements of a sensible energy policy?


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 17, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1334 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 16):
No, that would be YOUR conclusion, not mine. My comment was a general condemnation on the way democrats - and republicans - behave when they are in power.

No. You were specifically denouncing their motives for the first quoted excerpt of the bill:

Quoting Halls120 (Thread starter):
In other words, the democrats are following their base instincts

It's quite clear.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 16):
I see you still don't want to answer my question about the announced part of the legislation that could result in energy cutbacks. Do you think that will be wildly popular?

I've got other things to do right now, so that one didn't really catch my interest enough.


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1323 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 17):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 16):I see you still don't want to answer my question about the announced part of the legislation that could result in energy cutbacks. Do you think that will be wildly popular?
I've got other things to do right now, so that one didn't really catch my interest enough.

Of course you do! It's pretty funny how you have the time to address my motives for criticizing Congress, but not for a substantive discussion of an issue related to the energy bill.  biggrin 


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 19, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1309 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 18):
Of course you do! It's pretty funny how you have the time to address my motives for criticizing Congress, but not for a substantive discussion of an issue related to the energy bill.

Crass misrepresentations usually raise a  redflag ; A marginally interesting rehash of a previously discussed topic doesn't.


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1307 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 19):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 18):Of course you do! It's pretty funny how you have the time to address my motives for criticizing Congress, but not for a substantive discussion of an issue related to the energy bill.
Crass misrepresentations usually raise a ÊÊ; A marginally interesting rehash of a previously discussed topic doesn't.

Really? Rep. Udall's provision has been discussed before on Anet? Gee, I must have missed it!


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1300 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Thread starter):
In other words, the democrats are following their base instincts - take from a group they dislike, and give to a group they like. How typically democratic

 rotfl 

That's POLITICS. The Democrats do that when they're in power, and the Republicans do that when they're in power! Why is this "Typically democratic?" Halls. Are you saying the kind-hearted GOP doesn't do that?

It is "typically democratic", since it is what goes on ALL THE TIME in government.

Unfreakingbelievable. You're getting as bad as some of the neocon yahoo's on here!


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1291 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 21):
Quoting Halls120 (Thread starter):In other words, the democrats are following their base instincts - take from a group they dislike, and give to a group they like. How typically democratic
ÊÊ

That's POLITICS. The Democrats do that when they're in power, and the Republicans do that when they're in power! Why is this "Typically democratic?" Halls. Are you saying the kind-hearted GOP doesn't do that?

I see you have inherited another poster's lack of reading comprehension. Since you missed it, I'll repeat it.

" How typically democratic. Yes, the republicans do the same thing. Just goes to show once again that both parties are thoroughly corrupt."

Need me to repeat it once more, or have you taken off YOUR partisan blinders?

Just in case, I'll repeat what I said in the initial post - "" How typically democratic. Yes, the republicans do the same thing. Just goes to show once again that both parties are thoroughly corrupt."

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 21):
It is "typically democratic", since it is what goes on ALL THE TIME in government.

Unfreakingbelievable. You're getting as bad as some of the neocon yahoo's on here!

Really? Because I hold both parties in contempt? Because I question the idea of Congress telling the energy industry if they can't find enough "green" power, they might have to do without?

I find it hilarious that all the usual suspects start foaming at the mouth whenever a democrat is questioned.

Tell me Falcon, what did you think about the ideas I posted regarding a sensible energy policy? You going to label those neocon?  rotfl  If you do, let me warn you, some of them are also on the Sierra Club's list.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1285 times:

Got me on that one, Halls. I misread it, and I apologize to you.

And, as I put in another thread, the Dems won't take responsibility for rising gas prices anymore than Mr. Bush or the GOP will. It's a vicious cycle, and we need to get beyond that, get a "go to the moon" mentality, and wean our way off f oreign oil.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 24, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1278 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 22):
I see you have inherited another poster's lack of reading comprehension.

Nothing to do with that. You summarily dismissed the actual issue and any possible other motives (such as actually tackling a growing problem) and jumped on presumable "corruption" as the only possible explanation. That was the problem with your statement.

You certainly leaned out of the window farther than you could sustain - it's not other people's comprehension which is at fault, quite the opposite.


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 25, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1276 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 23):
Got me on that one, Halls. I misread it, and I apologize to you.

And, as I put in another thread, the Dems won't take responsibility for rising gas prices anymore than Mr. Bush or the GOP will. It's a vicious cycle, and we need to get beyond that, get a "go to the moon" mentality, and wean our way off f oreign oil.

Apology accepted. I understand that things can get a little heated at times.

Just remember that I've been watching the sausage get made in DC for 16 years now, and it isn't a pretty sight.

I agree that we need to move forward together. If anything is going to be our downfall, it is the rising tide of partisan hatred that has come to dominate too much of the public discourse.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Should Bush Veto His Own Energy Bill? posted Sat Aug 6 2005 23:34:31 by KC135R
White House Threatens To Veto Hate-crimes Bill posted Fri May 4 2007 07:04:31 by Diamond
Bill Richardson Enters White House Race posted Sun Jan 21 2007 19:58:01 by Klima
House Jabs Saudi Arabia In Foreign Aid Bill posted Sun Jun 11 2006 22:30:12 by RJpieces
House OKs Bill To Ban Funeral Protests posted Wed Apr 26 2006 22:19:52 by Tbar220
Canada Passes Same Sex Marriage Bill! posted Wed Jul 20 2005 22:40:16 by KLMA330
China Passes Anti-secession Bill Against Taiwan posted Mon Mar 14 2005 02:43:55 by MD11Engineer
Post A Picture Of Your House Or Apartment posted Wed Aug 1 2007 21:58:06 by UAL747
Former 49ers Coach Bill Walsh Dies posted Mon Jul 30 2007 21:22:53 by Allstarflyer
Do Any Of You Draw House/building Plans? posted Sun Jul 22 2007 02:19:59 by UAL747