Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know about everyone else, but that statement to me, always applied to income taxes, considering the income limit set. It's not like you can tax cigarettes or energy for people of a specific income only.
Everyone is so concerned about spending their Grandchildren's money in programs... well, I think it's more important that my Grandchildren have clean air to breathe, and fresh water to drink.
The problem with your "reasoning" is that they will have that without any more environmental regulation.
Life expectancy in western Europe before the industrial revolution was 26 years. It is now approaching 80.
If this stuff was bad for us or the environment it would be impossible to have increased life expectancy. Impossible.
George W. Bush finished what Ronald Reagan started, and left no stone unturned in driving America into insolvency. Obama is trying his best to play the hand he was dealt with the economy in tatters, two wars to resolve, and nuclear proliferation becoming the newest hobby of rogue nations.
If you have any positive suggestions, I'm certain President Obama would appreciate hearing them. If all you have to offer is kvetching, he's heard it all before, and so have we.
In case you didn't notice all Bush and Reagan gave us was bigger government. Reagan gave us the biggest tax increase in U.S. history in 1986. Bush created the largest department in U.S. history in DHS. Plus, Bush gave us the largest and most expensive program by any government in any country with the prescription drug for seniors program.
Democrats should love Reagan and Bush. All Reagan and Bush did was increase government.
Don't tell anyone but both of them increased Wall Street regulation too.
And you accuse Reagan and Bush of driving us into insolvency. LOLs. What exactly is Obama doing? He's spending more then both of those two put together. But, I guess it's okay for a democrat to do that. What a retard.
I was planning on moving to Australia for a few years as an experience, but maybe I'll end up making it permanent. It's not perfect there, but I'm not living under a cap and tax totalitarianism regime.
From what my Aussie friend tells me you might as well stay put since they are already where we want to go. When he describes their universal health care it scares me to death. I used to think Australia would be a good place but it isn't any more.
I don't know about everyone else, but that statement to me, always applied to income taxes, considering the income limit set. It's not like you can tax cigarettes or energy for people of a specific income only.
Everyone is so concerned about spending their Grandchildren's money in programs... well, I think it's more important that my Grandchildren have clean air to breathe, and fresh water to drink.
If we cut down too much CO2 what happens to plant life on the Earth? Have the Dems explained that yet? Algore hasn't but then he doesn't have to since he won a NObel for nothing.
I don't think that's what he's saying. He's simply saying that he voted for individuals to represent his basic Democratic-leaning philosophy. As such, he doesn't need to follow every issue moment to moment when they are doing what he voted for them to do.
How many members of the House got to see that bill before the voting started? All the Republicans that asked the Madame of the Room for copies were told to wait till they came up. How many Dems even got to read the original abortion that was only made available about 24 hours before the voting began? Of course, 300 pages of the 1300 pages were made available about 4:00 am and voted on by early afternoon.
When they wound up short of votes they even went to the rehab place that Patrick Kennedy was in and brought him back to vote. Now that is getting worried and they actually had enough yea votes to pass it without him.
Nope I don't worry a bit about the President calling members of Congress and telling them to vote yes, or else. One Republican stated that he skipped the luau at the White House the night before the vote because he didn't want Rahm Emanuel to corner him in a room offering all kinds of incentives for his vote.
Those who are willing to allow this kind of crap to go on for things like this really aren't very good voting citizens.
70% of the country is against this legislation. Odds are you're not going to find any takers. Not all opinions run along party lines.
This dem thinks this legislation is garbage.
You just forced me to change my opinion of you from the past few days. I guess you would have been one of the 44 honest Dems yesterday. That is very good.
If we cut down too much CO2 what happens to plant life on the Earth? Have the Dems explained that yet? Algore hasn't but then he doesn't have to since he won a NObel for nothing.
I didn't realize we still had plants.
Don't you remember the 1980s? Acid rain was going to destroy all the trees and then there was all the destruction of the rain forests in South America. Brazil is now a desert.
Or maybe those were just lies too.
I wish people would start calling out some of these global warming morons.
Maybe the hole in the ozone is effecting our thinking. Oh wait, that problem went away without government involvement too.
"I doubt most Americans care about this issue. They're more interested in Michael Jackson's death - by far."
You said:
"Yeah you keep thinking that"
I then pointed out that the TV networks and news websites are covering Michael Jackson extensively, and not cap and trade. The point is that if cap and trade was a burning issue in the minds of most Americans, they would be covering it heavily - not Michael Jackson.
If you don't understand that, then I'm giving up.
Lets try this from a different angle. I wonder how many Americans had any idea about what the House was doing yesterday. I doubt many really knew it could happen let along that it was happening. I think that maybe fewer would have seemed to care more about Jackson if they had known what was maybe happening to their change that is left over.
I sincerely believe that less than half of those people knew that that vote was going on yesterday. The normal thing is to introduce a bill, debate it a few days and then vote. That thing was introduced yesterday morning and voted on in the afternoon after no debate or reading of it. I don't even think many news people really realized it was happening until it was very far along the way.
As long as Nasty Nancy is in control things like this will continue to go on and by 2010 I am hoping that enough people realize that the only way to get her out of there is to elect anyone but Democrats to work with her. There will be plenty of us telling people how to stop this crap and then we will see how uncaring you are.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
