Obama implores Senate to pass climate bill

[Guest NewsBot]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Hours after the House passed landmark legislation meant to curb greenhouse gas emissions and create an energy-efficient economy, President Barack Obama on Saturday urged senators to show courage and follow suit....

 

By CHARLES BABINGTON

 

Read the full story.

[hugo]

It did not work in Spain.

[ImWithStupid]

or across the European Union.

[phreakwars]

Boy, every move the guy makes, you guys always say is wrong. It's getting quite pathetic really.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fEL2MKXk1M]YouTube - Headzup: Rush Limbaugh Blames Mark Sanford On Barack Obama[/ame]

.

.

[ImWithStupid]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bueCxeXZAUU]YouTube - OBAMA PROMISES TO RAISE YOUR ENERGY BILLS wants Government "Price Signals" "Change Your Behavior"[/ame]

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4&NR=1]YouTube - Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket[/ame]

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMwBbl6RoIs&feature=related]YouTube - Shock VIDEO Unearthed Obama says he will bankrupt coal indus[/ame]

 

Top 10 Facts on Why Speaker Pelosi's National Energy Tax Is a Bad "Deal" for America

"Deal" Is a Win for Liberal Special Interests, a Loss for Workers, Small Businesses, and Rural America

 

Washington, Jun 24 - Democratic leaders have announced a so-called ?deal? to bring House Speaker Nancy Pelosi?s (D-CA) national energy tax up for a House vote on Friday. Senior Democrats have already started to tout a number of trivial concessions and compromises that made this ?deal? possible. But, the fact is, the consequences of this ?deal? are no different from the consequences of the initial legislation introduced by Democrats earlier this year. It still amounts to jobs-killing policy that will increase costs for every American and will further harm our economy and American workers at a time when they can afford it least. Following are the Top 10 Facts about the House Democrats? so-called ?deal? to bring Speaker Pelosi?s national energy tax to the House floor later this week:

 

1. Speaker Pelosi?s National Energy Tax Will Impose a National Energy Tax on Every Single American. If you drive a car, buy food or a product manufactured in America, or have the audacity to flip on a light switch, you?ll pay more under Speaker Pelosi?s national energy tax. Here?s what Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) had to say about the tax: ?Nobody in this country realizes that cap and trade is a tax. And it?s a great big one.? And of course, President Obama agrees, saying that electricity rates will ?

? under this scheme.

 

2. Speaker Pelosi?s National Energy Tax Will Cost American Jobs, Shipping Them Overseas to China & India. According to a study by the National Black Chamber of Commerce, Speaker Pelosi?s national energy tax will cost 2.3 to 2.7 million jobs each year, even after the creation of new ?green? jobs. It will impose tough new requirements and increased costs on American manufacturers ? higher costs that they won?t face overseas, in places like China, India, or Mexico. This will cost American jobs in two ways: either domestic manufacturers will move overseas directly, or American companies in energy-intensive industries will be driven out of business by overseas rivals that undercut their prices. These job losses, and their ripple effects throughout our economy, were excluded from an incomplete analysis recently completed by the Congressional Budget Office. The Brookings Institute recently released a report that confirmed a national energy tax would reduce economic growth, increase costs, and kill jobs.

3. Speaker Pelosi?s National Energy Tax Will Cause Electricity Bills to ?Skyrocket.? Speaker Pelosi?s national energy tax will increase electricity bills for every American and small business. President Obama even

that it would cause electricity rates to ?necessarily skyrocket.? And Duke Energy, a major utility company that would receive free allowances under the Democrats? plan, has already requested a rate hike of 13.5 percent in anticipation of the energy tax.

4. Speaker Pelosi?s National Energy Tax Will Hurt Family Farmers & Rural America. Rural Americans would be disproportionately impacted by this burdensome, jobs-killing tax. They travel 25 percent farther than urban residents to go to work and run errands. They spend 58 percent more on fuel than urban residents as a percentage of their income. And electricity is far more costly to deliver to rural households than to urban homes across America. The end result: if Speaker Pelosi?s national energy tax becomes law, family farmers and rural small businesses will pay much, much more. That?s why an increasing number of rural organizations are opposing this harmful policy.

 

5. Speaker Pelosi?s National Energy Tax Will Not Improve the Environment. Even supporters of the national energy tax concede that unilateral American action will do nothing to improve Earth?s environment unless global competitors like China and India curb their emissions, too. The response from overseas? Don?t hold your breath. According to the Washington Post, ?But, after their talk this week, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman said China would not agree to reduce its emissions? Spokesman Qin Gang said??t is natural for China to have some increase in its emissions, so it is not possible for China in that context to accept a binding or compulsory target.?? And according to Xinhua News, Shyam Saran, India?s principal negotiator on climate change, discussed India?s reluctance to capping its greenhouse gas emissions, saying, ?[W]e don?t want to announce targets which we have no intention of achieving.?

Continued...

[ImWithStupid]

 

6. Speaker Pelosi?s National Energy Tax Will Cause Gasoline and Diesel Prices to Spike Further. Gasoline prices have spiked in recent weeks, yet Speaker Pelosi?s national energy tax will make gasoline and diesel even more expensive for families and small businesses. The Heritage Foundation estimates that it will raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 58 percent. Not only is that troubling to middle-class families trying to make ends meet, but small businesses ? such as America?s truck drivers who are responsible for transporting food and other products across the country ? are especially vulnerable during an economic recession. In fact, Tommy Hodges, First Vice Chairman of the American Trucking Association, recently warned that Speaker Pelosi?s national energy tax on America?s truck drivers will leave America?s truck drivers, exposed to dramatic and sudden fuel price spikes.

 

7. Speaker Pelosi?s National Energy Tax Will Be A Bureaucratic Nightmare. Speaker Pelosi?s national energy tax is a bureaucratic nightmare that would create a slew of new government programs overseen by a long and confusing web of government agencies. At the center of this web is the Environmental Protection Agency along with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Commodities Future Trading Commission, the Department of Energy, the Department of Agriculture, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Labor, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Treasury, the Department of State, the Forest Service, the Fish & Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the U.S. Geological Society, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Bureau of Land Management ? all with a hand in taking and redistributing trillions of dollars from family budgets and workers payrolls.

 

8. Speaker Pelosi?s National Energy Tax Will Send Billions of US Taxpayer Dollars Overseas. In addition to sending American jobs overseas, under Speaker Pelosi?s national energy tax, between 2012 and 2019, the United States will send $302 billion in taxpayers? money directly to foreign countries for international offsets, international tropical deforestation, international adaptation, and international technology transfer. American taxpayers are tired of the bailouts. Why do Washington Democrats want to force them to bankroll another global bailout too?

 

9. Speaker Pelosi?s National Energy Tax Will Raise Food Prices. Speaker Pelosi?s national energy tax will drive up costs for gasoline and energy used by farmers and businesses across the country. One of the most troubling results? The cost to produce and transport food will be driven higher than ever. The Heritage Foundation says ?The cost of producing everything from wheat to beef will increase. Indeed, the price deflator for private farm inventories goes up over 20 points by 2035. This increase gets quickly translated into much higher food prices for consumers at the grocery stores.? During a severe recession and further job losses, is this really the news small businesses and middle-class families want to hear?

 

10. Speaker Pelosi?s National Energy Tax Will Set the Stage for Another Market Meltdown. Mother Jones recently warned that if Speaker Pelosi?s national energy tax ?is signed into law, it will generate, almost as an afterthought, a new market for carbon derivatives. That market will be vast, complicated, and dauntingly difficult to monitor. And if Washington doesn?t get the rules right, it will be vulnerable to speculation and manipulation by the very same players who brought us the financial meltdown.? Taxpayers have paid dearly as a result of the financial crisis. Are Democrats setting them up to pay once again?

Top 10 Facts on Why Speaker Pelosi's National Energy Tax Is a Bad "Deal" for America | Republican Leader John Boehner

[ImWithStupid]

Reasons why Cap and Trade is a Bad Idea:

 

1. 
   [ ]The point of cap and trade is to increase the price of energy. Cap and trade is designed to increase the price of 85 percent of the energy we use in the United States.That is the point. For it to ?work,? cap and trade needs to increase the price of oil, coal, and natural gas to force consumers to use more expensive forms of energy. President Obama?s OMB director, Peter Orszag, told Congress last year that ?price increases would be essential to the success of a cap and trade program.?

[1]
[ ]Cap and trade schemes for carbon dioxide have not worked to reduce emissions. Europe?s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) began in 2005. The first phase, from 2005 to2007, did not reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Instead, overall emissions increased 1.9 percent over that period.[2] The reason is simple: European politicians know that cap and trade is economically harmful and do not want these policies to cost more jobs, especially during these difficult economic times. German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently stated that she would not allow EU climate regulations to go forward that would ?take decisions that would endanger jobs or investments in Germany.?[3]
[ ]Cap and trade will harm the poor. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the costs of reducing carbon dioxide emissions would disproportionally harm the poor. A mere 15 percent decrease in carbon dioxide emissions would cost the lowest-income Americans 3.3 percent of their income, but only 1.7 percent of the income of higher income households.[4] President Obama wants to decrease greenhouse gas emissions by 83 percent, not a mere 15 percent. This will entail much greater economic sacrifice among those who have the least to spare.

[attach=full]2351[/attach]

[ ]Cap and trade harms energy security. Some proponents of cap and trade claim that cap and trade will improve energy security. Unfortunately, this is exactly backwards?a cap and trade scheme will undermine and erode our nation?s energy security. When many people express concern about energy security, they are concerned about oil imported from foreign countries. They do not realize that domestically produced oil is our number one source of oil[5] and Canada is our number source of oil outside the U.S. During 2007, the last complete year for which data is available, only 17 percent of the oil we consumed came from the Middle East.[6] But cap and trade will assess a heavy penalty on Canadian oil. Much of the oil we get comes from its vast reserves of oil sands. Because it requires more energy to extract the resources from those sands than it does to produce oil in the Middle East, cap and trade will make Canadian oil more expensive than oil from the Middle East.
Cap and trade, therefore, creates incentives to import more oil from the Middle East, not less. Cap and trade also penalizes domestic oil extraction from oil shale. In Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, estimates suggest that 800 billion barrels of oil resources are ready to be produced.[7] For a sense of scale, that?s more than three times as much oil as Saudi Arabia has in its reserve. Also, the U.S. has the world?s largest coal reserves.[8] At current usage rates, we have 200-250 years of demonstrated coal reserves.[9] Coal-to-liquids could give the U.S. much larger reserves of petroleum fuels.

Continued...

[ImWithStupid]

1. 
   [ ]Cap and trade for sulfur dioxide emissions is not comparable to cap and trade for carbon dioxide. Proponents of cap and trade point to the sulfur dioxide program as an example of how easy and effective it would be to institute an economy-wide cap and trade program for CO2. But sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide emissions are not comparable. When the sulfur dioxide program started, it targeted only 110 coal-fired power plants. Later, it was expanded to 445 power plants.

[10] Greenhouse gas emissions are released from millions of sources, including electricity production, planes, trains, automobiles, ships, home furnaces, fertilizer production, farm animals, and millions of other sources, including humans. Regulating millions of different and individual sources of emissions is considerably different from regulating 445 plants. Also, many low-cost sulfur dioxide control options existed when the program took effect.[11] This is not the case with carbon dioxide control technologies. There are no control technologies that are commercially available at commercially-competitive prices. One way to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions was to use ?low-sulfur coal? but there is no ?low-carbon dioxide coal.?[12]
Indeed, the cost-effective way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is to use less energy. But energy is the lifeblood of the economy. Energy allows us to do more work with less time and effort. As a result, there is a strong correlation between energy use and economic prosperity, as the chart below demonstrates:

[attach=full]2352[/attach]

[ ]A domestic cap and trade program, even in the best case, can only produce marginal impacts on climate. In 2006, China surpassed the United States as the world?s largest emitter of carbon dioxide.[13] But the difference in emission growth rates is striking. According to data from the Global Carbon Project, from 2000 through 2007 global total greenhouse gas emissions increased 26 percent. During that same period, China?s carbon dioxide emissions increased 98 percent, India?s increased 36 percent and Russia?s increased 10 percent. Carbon dioxide emissions in the United States increased by three percent from 2000 through 2007.[14] These data are displayed in the graphic below:

[attach=full]2353[/attach]

As time goes on, the United States will emit a smaller and smaller share of the world?s total greenhouse gas emissions,[15] which makes unilateral efforts? such as a domestic cap and trade program?an ineffective way to influence climate. If the United States were to completely cease using fossil fuels, the increase from the rest of the world would replace U.S. emissions in less than eight years.[16] If we reduced the carbon dioxide emissions from the transportation sector to zero, the rest of the world would replace those emissions in less than two years.[17] Increases in worldwide carbon dioxide emissions are driven by developing economies, not the United States.
[ ]A domestic cap and trade program will force more industries to leave America. Energy costs are a major expenditure for heavy industry. America?s natural gas prices are the highest in the world,[18] even though we have the world?s sixth largest proven natural gas reserves.[19] The high price of natural gas has significantly contributed to the loss of more than 3,000,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000.[20] Cap and trade taxes will drive up the cost of natural gas because companies would use it as a substitute for coal in electricity production, which means increased electricity costs for industry and the individual. This is especially troublesome for chemical companies, all of which use natural gas not only as an energy source, but also as a feedstock. Higher natural gas prices will force them to pursue options offshore and overseas, reducing American jobs.
[ ]A cap that is set at the wrong level will cause great economic harm. Even the proponents of carbon taxes, such as Yale University Professor William Nordaus, find that once there is deviation from worldwide participation, the costs of achieving environmental global improvements dramatically rise. Nordhaus? economic model shows that an overly ambitious and/or inefficiently structured policy can swamp the potential benefits of a perfectly calibrated and efficiently targeted plan.[21] For example, Nordhaus? optimal plan yields net benefits of $3 trillion ($5 trillion in reduced climatic damages and $2 trillion in abatement costs). Yet other popular proposals have abatement costs that exceed their benefits. Take for example former Vice President Al Gore?s 2007 proposal. It sought to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 90 percent by 2050. Nordhaus? model estimates this plan would make the world more than $21 trillion poorer than if there were no controls on carbon dioxide.[22]

 

 

Institute for Energy Research Blog Archive Cap and Trade Primer: Eight reasons why cap and trade harms the economy and reduces jobs

[phreakwars]

So what's the Republican solution? Drill baby drill, pollute baby pollute. Another tax cut for the rich? Perhaps more bitching? And your so damn concerned about next generations and the money they have to pay back.. HA. I'd rather have my kids in debt paying off GWB's massive screw-up, then living on a planet full of depleted resources, thin air, and poisoned streams.

.

.

[ImWithStupid]

What You May Not Know About Speaker Pelosi's National Energy Tax

More Mandates, More Regulations, and More Costs Than Ever Before

 

Washington, Jun 26 - Speaker Pelosi?s

national energy tax is going to [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydqg7ThZB04]raise electricity prices[/ame], increase gasoline prices, and ship American jobs overseas to countries like China and India. This, we know.

It would be a bureaucratic nightmare overseen by a confusing web of government agencies that would take and redistribute trillions of dollars from family budgets and workers payrolls. This, we also know. Even Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) admitted in the Washington Post this morning that: ?The truth is, nobody knows for sure how this is going to work.? How encouraging.

 

But what don?t we know? Here are some facts you may not know about Speaker Pelosi?s national energy tax:

Homebuyers Beware. Trying to save up for a new home? You may have to save up a little longer for your purchase. The Democrats? bill would dramatically increase new home costs by mandating California?s expensive new building codes for the entire nation. Immediately upon enactment, the Democrats? bill would demand a 30 percent increase in energy efficiency for new construction. A couple of years later, the Democrats? bill would require an additional 50 percent improvement. These numbers were chosen with no concern for cost to consumers or feasibility in implementation.

Homebuilders Beware. The Democrats? bill imposes new mandatory regulations and civil penalties for homebuilders. If your state refuses to accept the stringent and costly California building codes, the federal government may assess penalties. And don?t get too comfortable with the new mandatory regulations because the Democrats? bill allows for ?consensus-based? codes to supplant those outlined in the bill. So, as soon as you?ve invested your hard-earned money to comply with the bill?s mandates, the rug could get pulled from underneath you. Translation? You?ll pony up more and more money.

 

Home Sellers Beware. Having a hard time selling your home? Here?s one more hurdle to jump: all homes sales are conditioned upon an energy audit and a new energy rating assessment and energy labeling program for your home that?s outlined in the Democrats? bill. And if you thought you could improve your property with a fresh coat of paint and some granite counters? Think again! Now your home will be subjected to a new energy rating assessment and energy labeling program that will penalize you for older windows, original fixtures, and dated appliances. So the Democrats? bill would bring down the value of your home!

 

New Lights No Matter the Cost. As early as 2012, the Democrats? bill eliminates all existing lighting technology used in many outdoor lighting fleets (parking lots, stadiums, secured facilities like power plants and factories). Just as an example, switching to the mandated technology in the bill will cost one small utility about $30 million in annual revenue. So you now have to comply with the new mandates for new lighting? Hold the phone. It is not clear that a feasible alternative technology is available for every existing lighting application ? regardless of cost ? which could force some businesses to close.

 

The consequences of Speaker Pelosi?s national energy tax for families and small businesses are real. It will drive up energy costs, send millions of jobs to countries like China and India, and place an especially heavy burden on rural America. There is a better way. House Republicans have proposed the American Energy Act, legislation that represents the fastest route to a cleaner environment, lower energy costs, and more American jobs. The legislation would:

 

 

• 
  [ ]Increase environmentally-safe energy production on remote lands and far off our shores;
  [ ]Promote the use of alternative fuels that will reduce carbon emissions, such as nuclear, clean-coal, and renewable energy technologies; and
  [ ]Encourage increased efficiencies and cutting edge technologies to maximize America?s energy potential.
  

Today?s vote on Speaker Pelosi?s ill-advised national energy tax will have consequences for every American. It is a bad deal for America. And the American people will remember how their Members of Congress vote.

[ImWithStupid]

What You May Not Know About Speaker Pelosi's National Energy Tax

More Mandates, More Regulations, and More Costs Than Ever Before

 

Speaker Pelosi?s

national energy tax is going to raise electricity prices, increase gasoline prices, and ship American jobs overseas to countries like China and India. This, we know.

It would be a bureaucratic nightmare overseen by a confusing web of government agencies that would take and redistribute trillions of dollars from family budgets and workers payrolls. This, we also know. Even Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) admitted in the Washington Post this morning that: ?The truth is, nobody knows for sure how this is going to work.? How encouraging.

 

But what don?t we know? Here are some facts you may not know about Speaker Pelosi?s national energy tax:

Homebuyers Beware. Trying to save up for a new home? You may have to save up a little longer for your purchase. The Democrats? bill would dramatically increase new home costs by mandating California?s expensive new building codes for the entire nation. Immediately upon enactment, the Democrats? bill would demand a 30 percent increase in energy efficiency for new construction. A couple of years later, the Democrats? bill would require an additional 50 percent improvement. These numbers were chosen with no concern for cost to consumers or feasibility in implementation.

Homebuilders Beware. The Democrats? bill imposes new mandatory regulations and civil penalties for homebuilders. If your state refuses to accept the stringent and costly California building codes, the federal government may assess penalties. And don?t get too comfortable with the new mandatory regulations because the Democrats? bill allows for ?consensus-based? codes to supplant those outlined in the bill. So, as soon as you?ve invested your hard-earned money to comply with the bill?s mandates, the rug could get pulled from underneath you. Translation? You?ll pony up more and more money.

 

Home Sellers Beware. Having a hard time selling your home? Here?s one more hurdle to jump: all homes sales are conditioned upon an energy audit and a new energy rating assessment and energy labeling program for your home that?s outlined in the Democrats? bill. And if you thought you could improve your property with a fresh coat of paint and some granite counters? Think again! Now your home will be subjected to a new energy rating assessment and energy labeling program that will penalize you for older windows, original fixtures, and dated appliances. So the Democrats? bill would bring down the value of your home!

 

New Lights No Matter the Cost. As early as 2012, the Democrats? bill eliminates all existing lighting technology used in many outdoor lighting fleets (parking lots, stadiums, secured facilities like power plants and factories). Just as an example, switching to the mandated technology in the bill will cost one small utility about $30 million in annual revenue. So you now have to comply with the new mandates for new lighting? Hold the phone. It is not clear that a feasible alternative technology is available for every existing lighting application ? regardless of cost ? which could force some businesses to close.

 

The consequences of Speaker Pelosi?s national energy tax for families and small businesses are real. It will drive up energy costs, send millions of jobs to countries like China and India, and place an especially heavy burden on rural America. There is a better way. House Republicans have proposed the American Energy Act, legislation that represents the fastest route to a cleaner environment, lower energy costs, and more American jobs. The legislation would:

 

 

• 
  [ ]Increase environmentally-safe energy production on remote lands and far off our shores;
  [ ]Promote the use of alternative fuels that will reduce carbon emissions, such as nuclear, clean-coal, and renewable energy technologies; and
  [ ]Encourage increased efficiencies and cutting edge technologies to maximize America?s energy potential.
  

Today?s vote on Speaker Pelosi?s ill-advised national energy tax will have consequences for every American. It is a bad deal for America. And the American people will remember how their Members of Congress vote.

 

What You May Not Know About Speaker Pelosi's National Energy Tax | Republican Leader John Boehner

[ImWithStupid]

So what's the Republican solution? Drill baby drill, pollute baby pollute. Another tax cut for the rich? Perhaps more bitching? And your so damn concerned about next generations and the money they have to pay back.. HA. I'd rather have my kids in debt paying off GWB's massive screw-up, then living on a planet full of depleted resources, thin air, and poisoned streams.

.

.

Imagine that, a response that somehow makes a reference to GWB's debt without addressing the astronomical debt that BHO is doing through social engineering, that has been proven not to work, and is completely baseless as to the topic at hand.

 

Republicans Introduce the American Energy Act - GOP.gov

[phreakwars]

The difference is, Obama has no choice but to create debt just to fix Bush's screw ups. George created it because he was like a kid in a candy store when it came to using our tax dollars. Can't spin that. Facts are facts.

 

proven not to work

Only an opinion, no proof what so ever.

 

And again, so what's that Republican solution? I'm not hearing one. All I hear is BITCH, BITCH, BITCH.

 

Like Jim Cornette said. The Republicans ran this country into the ditch, now they are complaining about the cost of the tow truck.

.

.

[RoyalOrleans]

How would America's biggest oil companies react to this cap-and-trade legislation? Most people would say "who cares?" because they are big, bad, evil corporations. But you should care, because the big, bad, evil corporations also provide Americans with jobs and energy.

 

So how will these companies react? According to Bloomberg News, they will be closing plants, cutting capital spending and increasing imports. You see, fuel importers will only need to purchase permits for the fuel that is to be burned by cars, trucks, etc. Domestic oil companies, on the other hand, would also have to buy allowances for any CO2 produced by their plants. Clearly that would make domestic companies less competitive and create an imbalance in the market. Yeah .. .haven't thought of that one, have you?

 

The CEO of ConocoPhillips, Jim Mulva, says, "It will lead to the opportunity for foreign sources to bring in transportation fuels at a lower cost, which will have an adverse impact to our industry, potential shutdown of refineries and investment and, ultimately, employment."

 

It is estimated that one out of every six US refineries would close by 2020 because the cost of carbon allowances would simply erase profits, according to the American Petroleum Institute. For the consumer, carbon permits would add 77 cents to the price of a gallon of gasoline. Slowly, people have started to realize that Obama has mastered the art of increasing taxes on businesses, which ultimately pass on those increases in the form of price hikes for consumers.

[timesjoke]

The think I point out about liberals over and over is how while they claim to be the party of the minority, the poor, the downtrodden....everythign they do actually hurts most of those who they claim to be helping.

 

Who will be hurt the most by massive increases in heating/cooling costs?

 

The poor.

 

 

Who will be hurt by loss jobs caused by this legislation?

 

The poor.

 

 

Who is the big winner of these programs?

 

The liberal elite.

 

 

 

I find it interesting many talk about the excess spending of Bush when he had an all liberal congress against him, if they really wanted to curb his spending they could have done it. Obama has inherited the deficit caused by his fellow liberals, not Bush.

 

 

The "stimulus package" (that caused me pain just to write it) spent more money with one swipe of Obama's pen then all of the war spending over 7 years of Bush in both Afganistan and Iraq.

 

 

America is not going broke, we are already broke and we need to stop spending money we do not have.