What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
104 Comments
- snyper256, on 06/27/2009, -2/+24Why don't these people try voting as their constituents would like them to? Who are they trying to represent?
- Protonz, on 06/27/2009, -16/+33How the hell can anyone say they support this bill? Does anyone really understand it?
Here's the huge table of contents:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.245 ...
I am sure there are very few diggers that can say they have read through this and support it. Instead this seems to resemble the irrationality of a religious cult when you try to question their beliefs.
This eco-hysteria seems to make some people feel more 'moral' than others, but look into DDT. Look at how many people died due to malaria because of the ban which was caused by bad science backed up by eco-hysteria. - airfabio, on 06/27/2009, -6/+18Very interesting graph.
California with limited amount of electricity generated by coal and very strong alternative energy industry is going to be the main beneficiary of cap and trade, yet all Republicans except one votes against the bill. The vote seems to be more along partisan lines than benefit lines. - EarlOfLade, on 06/27/2009, -8/+20 Here is the American idea of environmentalism:
"We support it as long as it doesn't cost us anything in form of taxes and we don't have to stop using SUV's and gas guzzlers!"
Taxes have become a curse word among right wingers, just like the only word more scary to a right winger than the word "terrorist" is the word "government" - orangefly, on 06/27/2009, -3/+15not sure who you're ***** on with that comment....
- Doubledown, on 06/27/2009, -13/+23New England representatives don't know their heads from their asses... I should know, I live in Mass. where being a politician is a birth-right
- RonPauls, on 06/27/2009, -21/+30Obama's a joke. He said this will increase jobs. Uhhh, you can't restrict a resource by artificial decree and have it increase jobs.
CAP our prosperity, TRADE jobs overseas... - jason4188, on 06/27/2009, -20/+28Let's hope like hell this tax bill does not make it through the Senate. Obama is back tracking now and saying that it will only increase our energy cost slightly in 20 years or so now. It was just a few months ago he said it would skyrocket energy cost. I wonder if he is actually going to do anything that is going to have a positive effect on this country in his first year. Stimulus, Omnibus, Cap and trade and Healthcare all in one year... is he on a mission to destroy the economy? I thought the democrats were pissed off about the out of control spending? This ***** out spent Bush in his first month of office and Bush had around 7 years of war to pay for. Eventually we are going to have to start paying for all of this spending Pelosi and Obama are dreaming up and I have news for you the 250k and above crowd are not going to be covering the tab.
- wshs, on 06/27/2009, -1/+9The government is a product of its people. Don't like how it's operating? Then stop voting in the same asshats at every election. A Carlin quote is very relevant here:
"They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck." - PhreakMac, on 06/27/2009, -10/+17This act doesn't do ***** except take money out of the peoples pocket - go ask greenpeace what they think of the bill.....
Where is the 5 days for public viewing? they tried to ram in 300 extra pages at the last second. - MrSlumberjack, on 06/27/2009, -2/+9Mardala,
I'm not sure if you even read the article that you linked to, but Kucinich thinks its too WEAK of a solution to climate change, not too much. If it was up to him, the characteristics that people hate about this bill would be 10x what they are. I totally agree with him. This is a pathetic attempt to solving the issue of climate change; it's barely a pin-prick, when we need a harpoon gun. - PopcornDave, on 06/27/2009, -0/+7The people that pay their "extra" salaries.
- airfabio, on 06/27/2009, -0/+7He was talking about a completely different bill. The bill White House suggested has significantly higher carbon rates, but also much higher rebates.
- darlingt, on 06/27/2009, -0/+6Irony would be if Jim Reliable didn't vote.
- Zetal, on 06/27/2009, -2/+8Seriously, this should be about energy sources, not carbon. It's such a joke that Congress keeps losing the big picture. By focusing on better technology which happens to be clean, they can reduce emissions indirectly. Plus, this cap-and-trade crap is bogus. It sounds less effective than saying that organizations are set at limits. PERIOD.
- greatlurker, on 06/27/2009, -0/+5republicans had it past 8 years, democrat only in office for 6 months. It is sad to see that "TAX" is such good weapon to shot off any possible step forward.
- SpartanErik, on 06/27/2009, -8/+13But why now during a recession?
This is guaranteed to raise energy costs for all consumers. At a time when families are already struggling, hiking up energy prices is going to drive up the price of all goods. Sure the lower income families are going to receive subsidies, but what about the middle class? They're bearing the burden here!
I hope the Senate shoots this bill down. Maybe a few years from now when the economy is better, go for it. But please, not now. - Mardala, on 06/27/2009, -5/+10Kucinich hates it too and laid out his reasons why. http://www.opednews.com/articles/Kucinich--Passing ...
He's one of the few remaining politicians who work for the people and he has some good reasons why this is not a good bill. - austroLogi, on 06/27/2009, -5/+10The issue isn't important. Its just another tax hike, one of many of the democrats. Trying to gain more control over our lives. Global warming is a fraud, the hoax is up.
- huskypride86, on 06/27/2009, -0/+5FYI, the Car Allowance Rebate System is actually for vehicles produced AFTER 1984, and you'll be credited EITHER $3,500 or $4,500. The only problem I have is that the program ends in November, it should at least last through next year, so that those who get tax rebates, could use the credit to buy a more efficient car.
- frieddonuts, on 06/27/2009, -2/+6@SpartanErik You're thinking in the short term. The US currently is stuck in the carbon-dependent trap. Do you want to return to what we have and be stuck in a cycle of energy dependence or do you want to adapt and look towards the future?
Like PhreakMac said, this bill is being opposed by Greenpeace, because they believe that it is too conservative and their zealotry prevents them from supporting any compromise with business groups. This is the problem with the environmental debate- we finally meet a compromise and it is being attacked from both sides. - ButterBuddha, on 06/27/2009, -0/+4I'm amazed by the voting pattern in New York State, the rural vs urban divide is quite striking.
btw - good use of GIS - ReinMasamuri, on 06/28/2009, -1/+4The problem is that even the EPA says that this will not help the environment. It will simply move jobs overseas to places like China and India where they have almost no environmental regulation, which will actually be WORSE for the environment.
- austroLogi, on 06/27/2009, -7/+10And what makes you think its governments job to go around controling every aspect of our lives. Government doesn't know best and people are fed up with being taxed to death and reliant on government for everything!
- Ferretman, on 06/28/2009, -2/+5Ah, to the contrary--those that voted "yes" deserve no respect and will gather none from me.
Everybody who voted "no"--they're the heroes who understand the catastrophic disaster that this bill is. - esser1999, on 06/28/2009, -1/+4Maybe it was all the jobs going to India and China who don't have to worry about laws like these.
- cashmonkey, on 06/28/2009, -1/+4These comments make me sick to read. All people are talking about is money. What about the benefits? No one is asking if this will be effective at reducing greenhouse gases.
- Mardala, on 06/27/2009, -3/+6Yes I did read it, not sure where in my statement Kucinich doesn't like this bill makes you think I didn't read the article, but he does say it is weak and in this article he says it won't work and will end up costing too much for doing nothing in the long run.
- Digger1123, on 06/27/2009, -4/+7Good Economy > Clean Air
Obama is going to destroy the economy with cap and tax. The companies will pay nothing, even Obama says that all the cost will be passed onto the consumer, he also stated that energy prices would "necessarily skyrocket".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNSZ62xiD4M - Digger1123, on 06/27/2009, -0/+3the $175 figure is after rebates, the CBO puts the yearly hit at around $700 before rebates.
- Zetal, on 06/27/2009, -2/+5Try getting figures from the independent sources rather than your partisan ones. There are huge differences in the figures. BTW, this bill has nothing to do with individuals, cars, and breathing. It's all just the same misinformation when talk news decides to scare people.
- emjaymj, on 06/27/2009, -1/+4"Not willing to risk upsetting their constituents"
You're kidding, right? The whole point of their freaking job is to represent their constituents. - Railz, on 06/27/2009, -1/+4Don't know why he is being buried. I don't mind our own state assemblies, but our congressmen are idiots from political families.
- Zetal, on 06/27/2009, -0/+3Well, if it is worth more than $3500, that would mean you could trade your vehicle without the rebate. Crazy thought, I know. =P
- diggduggjoe, on 06/27/2009, -0/+2Their constituents are the big pocketed industries which fund their campaigns.
- frieddonuts, on 06/27/2009, -10/+12Unfortunately both parties displayed their loyalty to entrenched fossil fuel interests. Look how few of the coal district Democrats voted yes. Not willing to risk upsetting their constituents, even though this is the most important climate legislation since the Clean Air act.
- Trent1492, on 06/28/2009, -0/+1"Are individuals going to be subject to cap and tax? Do we have to get our carbon credit to breathe, because exhaling release CO2 into the air?"
No. Today's key concept is: FOSSIL Fuel. This concept brought to you by the Carbon Cycle.
"Maybe if we hyperventilate we will have to buy the credits off of someone who died early in the year and still has some credits left?"
The ignorance and fear mongering are just stunning. - RFRStormer, on 06/28/2009, -0/+2Yes you are correct, but all the economies of the world were humming along quite well at that time. Now, we have a mess, and this bill could be that extra push to destabilize what is left of our economy. I know we need to pass this or something similar at some point. But, it just cannot be done right now. We will already have a HYPER-INFLATION event once the economy starts to kick into gear. All that money being pumped into the world is going to create this next problem. This bill, along with the cost of everything else having moved up, is going to create a strain on the world that no one will see coming until it is too late. President Obama is simply trying to do too much all at once, we have to stand back and make sure that each project is being completed correctly. Otherwise, all of this is just a waste of money. Are you so certain that we need this bill right now, that you are willing to gamble so many people lives or jobs? This may cause so much more additional pain in the world as the economies fail one after another? I say, we wait. Schedule money to continue to encourage alt energy, work to bring that cost down, and the world will simply move from a fossil fuel based one to a Free Energy System. Energy prices will be back up to the extreme levels soon, and will surpass those extremes. So, it will simply force us to make that hard choice, and finally transition into a Wind, Solar, Hybrid Fusion, or maybe Fusion environment. Either way, best to wait it out, and let the Capitalistic system that we have in place ultimately handle it as demand for cheaper and more effective power wins over the current system in place.
- mwilhelm, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2"when the other team is being deceitful about their motives from the start."
Proves that whether global warming (ahem, excuse me climate change) is truly a hoax or not is irrelevant to your argument.
All you care about is that one side is doing the fleecing - not the other.
"Never mind that we potentially face the first world-wide human crisis, and there is a complete lack of true scientific understanding... if a black president's friends are goona get rich off of improving our energy generating efficiency and solidify their power structure - i don't want any part..."
Remember, it's your argument that made it about something other than helping the environment. I bet you'd be singing a different tune if you had skin in the game. - Logrusmage, on 06/27/2009, -1/+3Coincidental. Not ironic.
- inactive, on 06/27/2009, -1/+3There are different numbers being thrown around sebth. I think yours are the kindest available, not the most accurate.
Car rebate is for cars made after 1984. My bad. Another note I was interested in though was what happens if your car is worth more than 3500? Supposedly the rebate replaces trade in value, not supplements it. So if your car is worth $3000 you only gain 500. What if it is worth more than the rebate offers? From what I read people who would want to trade in a car worth less than 3500 wouldn't be buying a shiny new vehicle. You aren't allowed to trade in for a used vehicle. This program still seems a waste. Corrections? - Zetal, on 06/27/2009, -2/+4It also means lower spending for the electric companies. Imagine that.
After all, these are utilities we're talking about. It would be nice to have competition. Isn't that what they really like? Free-market? =P - Digger1123, on 06/27/2009, -1/+3the letter after their name
- RedSaber, on 06/27/2009, -1/+3GIS ftw!
Btw, don't be surprised at the voting pattern in rural areas... antisocial freaks are also very often scared retards. - Zetal, on 06/27/2009, -2/+4It sure sucks that people can't be trusted or don't do stuff for themselves as a whole. After all, too much trust is how we got into this economic mess.
- orangefly, on 06/27/2009, -4/+6Yeah, and maybe I'm a Chinese jet pilot.
- mwilhelm, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2You're paying the same tax rate regardless.
The only difference is, whether it serves the public good or the private good.
"Gas Guzzlers" aren't the problem - even though it is solving it's self from a natural paradigm shift in social behavior and expectations.
The problem is institutional power generation. This bill gives utilities a free pass for the next 3 years while unfairly taxing transportation industries.
We can expect the cost of EVERYTHING to go up. - huskypride86, on 06/27/2009, -0/+2From what it reads, you can still get more than the $3,500 or $4,500, the law does not stop dealers from paying more. More than likely this will not happen because, you're more than likely not going to get more than scrap value, as the vehicles are to be destroyed, thus keeping the gas guzzlers off the road. The credit is meant to be a replacement of the trade-in value. The main purpose of this is to inflate the trade-in value of many vehicles. You can also use it in addition to cash back, rebates, and other discounts on the vehicles you may decide to purchase as the law requires to dealers to honor the program's credit in addition to those incentives. This also includes the hybrid tax credits.
I will concede though, that there is a hinderance that will disqualify many people, the vehicles had to have been insured for at least the past year. I also do agree that the program should include used vehicles with the similar scale for MPG requirements. The intent seems right and we'll have to see how effective it is. If the program is a loss, maybe they'll rework it to include fuel efficient used vehicles. In addition to removing the vehicles, I think they're trying to jump start sales of new autos. You're points are valid that there is a large group that the program does not make sense, but it could help quite a bit of people, we'll just have to see. - mwilhelm, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1"No one is asking if this will be effective at reducing greenhouse gases."
It wont.
There's a laundry list of reasons why, but they are all pretty obvious. There is a slim chance, however, this bill could be the critical first step towards ACTUALLY doing something about pollution - but it seems more like a wolf in sheep's clothing to me than anything else.
If they wanted to lower green house gas emissions, they would do it. It's not very hard, you just have to get past industry lobbies. The most prudent and simple example is Autos, considering the state of the industry there has never been a better time to leverage political capital and require them to actually innovate something - yet they continue to get handouts and special treatment without putting anything on the table. 35 mpg standard is horse *****.
I for one am not buying another vehicle that gets under 75. - ReinMasamuri, on 07/08/2009, -0/+1I wasn't responding to you, I was responding to austrologi.
Apparently it is YOU who does not get MY post... -
Show 51 - 100 of 106 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is