Renob, boychik, I am the lower and middle class. It’s not deprecation if it’s true, and there are far too many of my ilk (I really like having an “ilk”, gives me a topic on poker night) who will cheerfully vote against their own long-term interest. Happens all the time. Surely you’ve noticed.
Yes it was. And BLM lands are in the western states. And I have seen what has been done by mining interests in those states. It is pretty disgusting.
Not trying to be purposefully obtuse here (it just looks that way), but since lumber is a renewable resource, and lumber companies own huuuuuge tracts of land, why does the government wanting to maintain national forests cut into that? Because, as tired and Pollyannish as it is, those are national forest lands. They are there for the enjoyment and recreation of the American people.
Oh! If I had a bright shiny $100 bill for every time I’ve heard that. . .
So, you apologize for calling me a heartless liberal. . .then you turn around and call my people (I like having “people”, too, but having an “ilk” is much cooler) heartless for acting in the interests of the entire population of the US. Not sure I see the diff, but, eh.
My mistake, it’s Clear Skies. And it sounds great until you live downstream from a power plant that purchased a whole shitload of mercury credits. Where the lower and middle classes live. Primarily the former.
And on preview, I can answer Marley23 by saying, “I just don’t know. . .I can’t help myself.”
GLWasteful already pointed out one problem with a cap-and-trade system that can occur when the pollutants have strong local effects, but the bigger issue here is what the caps are. And, what we know is that the original “straw man” proposal floated by the EPA to the electric companies that was supposed to be roughly emissions-neutral relative to the “business-as-usual” under the Clean Air Act was drastically modified by the White House, i.e., the caps were raised considerably. Then, in order to make it look like it would still be cutting emissions relative to “business as usual”, they redefined “business as usual” to mean something different. What the EPA had defined it as originally is what they estimated the laws would have to be tightened up to in order to meet the requirements set by the Clean Air Act. What the White House redefined it as is what has been called the “Rip Van Winkle” scenario…i.e., the laws stay exactly as they are today. The problem with that scenario is that it leads to huge violations of the Clean Air Act requirements and thus it ain’t what was going to happen. If the government had tried not to tighten up the laws to meet the Clean Air Act provisions, the environmental groups would have sued and easily won in court because the Clean Air Act is the law.
By the way, it is worth noting that there was a Democratic alternative to Clear Skies that was also a cap-and-trade approach had caps more like that of the original EPA “straw man” proposal and I believe it was even analyzed (by the EPA or whatever relevant government agency) and shown not to be that much more costly. Of course, the White House opposed it.
Oh yeah…And I’ll also note that the Administration is strongly opposing a market-based cap-and-trade proposal (the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship bill) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. This is further evidence that the issue is not about supporting market-based approaches but rather about supporting the weakest possible regulations/approaches.
No, I’d make it worse, and I’d put it in the BBQ pit. I’m a Kerry supporter. Shit like this makes our candidate look bad, and I’m hoping someone can refute the St. pete paper.
It amazes me how you’re always making incorrect assumptions marley, ever since I met you in SDMB, you always make assumptions about what people are thinking, trying to do, etc., and you’re so often wrong!
Can you please try to READ the posts and stick with the FACTS instead of knee-jerk reacting to people you have a grudge against?
And it amazes me that you’re the only person here who makes these kinds of comments to me, so quit hijacking your own thread. Either answer my post or ignore it. If you wanted the article refuted, maybe you should’ve said so. CLEARLY I’m not the only person who felt your OP was baiting (see GLWasteful and rjung’s posts). Maybe you should take a minute to figure out why.
What can I say, marley23? Merijeek, SimonX, ShibbOleth, elucidator, John Mace, SyteveG1, Renob, and myself had no problem.
Looks like you’re in the miniority (sproooiiiinnnng!- sound of knee-jerk response).
I agree with their assessment. The Pubbies (if it was them) attack on kerry via Georgie has no meat. The guy just want’s to make the world better! (In his image, but it’s a pretty altruistic image!)
Actually, I also thought you were being negative about the Democrats, Snake. It appears SimonX did too, by effectively suggesting you were holding the same opinions but failing to disclose them:
The only opinion presented in the OP was one that was negative about the Democrats. If you’re so offended by people thinking you don’t like the Dems, just state your actual POV in the OP. And there’s no need to get so offended, either. Most people in this thread attempted to give pretty relaxed and rational rebuttals to your OP.
In response to “talk to the locals”:
I am the vice president of Local 2429, American Federation of Government Emplyees (AFGE), which is part of the AFL CIO. In the past few years, here are some things that had a potential direct impact on us. There was a “survey”, by an outside consulting firm to assess us. It was ostensibly to determine our capabilities. However, from the initial proposal on, it continually brought up “competency gaps”. It sure looks like there was a foregone conclusion. There have been numerous changes in the civil service system, supposedly to make us more efficient and to fight any wild eyed terrorist that may wander into our cubicles (sarcasm). All it really was, was an attempt to remove certain basic conditions that had been agreed to in our union contracts - little things like job security, protection from various forms of abuse, redress for unfair actions, fair and honest promotions, protection from unfair dismissals. There have been “A-76” reviews to decide which job series would be outsourced and given to private firms. So, yes, I know a little bit about “the locals”. This all is purely from my own perspective, and I deliberately used tunnel vision here, to exclude anything that is happening elsewhere. But, I really doubt that there is any deep seated “concern for the worker bee” going on here.