« | »

The Biggest Tax Increase In US History

[Please scroll down for updates.]

It is a sad testimony to the state of our watchdog media that we have to turn to the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal for any substantive analysis of the ‘Cap And Trade’ legislation, which will be voted on today:

The Cap and Tax Fiction

JUNE 26, 2009

Democrats off-loading economics to pass climate change bill.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put cap-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House, and the bill may get a full vote as early as Friday. It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the discipline of economics to get it done…

Their gambit got a boost this week, when the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of what has come to be known as the Waxman-Markey bill. According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman’s co-author, instantly set to crowing that the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average household. Amazing. A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it contains so many caveats as to render it useless.

For starters, the CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.

To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO’s analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.

The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."

The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill’s restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035

Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won’t pinch wallets, behind the scenes they’ve acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.

The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain’s Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.

Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can’t repeal that reality.

As this editorial notes, the Waxman-Markey would cost the US economy $161 billion in 2020, which works out to $1,870 for a family of four.

As the bill’s restrictions kick in, that number will rise to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

And, of course, it isn’t just the hike in taxes that is the problem.

(Click to enlarge.)

This chart, from the US Chamber of Commerce, maps out the regulatory process and implementation of H.R. 2454, the ‘American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.’

‘Cap And Trade’ will impose 397 new federal regulations and 1060 new mandates. It will mean that much more unwanted and unnecessary control over our lives and liberty.

It is tempting to let the Democrats run completely amok and pass this bill and the upcoming Obama healthcare program. The resulting destruction to our economy would almost certainly destroy the Democrat Party for generations.

But the problem is that our country and our lives will also be destroyed.

These bills simply cannot be allowed to pass.


From a wildly cheering Reuters:

House climate change bill clears key hurdle

By Richard Cowan Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A controversial climate change bill sought by President Barack Obama advanced in the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday, clearing the way for possible approval of a measure to control global warming.

The bill cleared a procedural hurdle in a narrow vote of 217-205 when the House approved the rule for debating the Democratic-backed proposal. Democratic leaders were optimistic the bill could be approved by the House as early as Friday.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, asked by a reporter whether she still lacked the votes for passage, replied: "Quite to the contrary."

The procedural vote was mostly along partisan lines but was evidence Democratic leaders had made progress toward passing the legislation. At the core of the 1,200-page bill is a "cap and trade" plan designed to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050, from 2005 levels…

Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett told CNBC on Friday the president was "on the phone" trying to help win passage. Obama also met at the White House on Thursday with some undecided Democrats.

"It’s a job creator. It’s going to help save millions of dollars, billions of dollars, for our economy and we don’t know right now if we have the votes, so we’re going to work up until the last moment," Jarrett said…

Pelosi, Obama and others cited environmental benefits, job creation and even national security as the legislation attempts to move the country away from its dependence on foreign oil in favor of developing domestically produced alternative fuels such as wind and solar energy and possibly "clean coal.” 

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy said, "Savings from reduced energy use will be reinvested locally, creating a multiplier effect that will generate economic activity and jobs."

[P]assage by the House this year would let Obama attend a December international conference on climate change with a major victory in hand. That conference aims to lay out a global approach to dealing with climate change over the next few decades…

Supporters of the bill received other breaks this week, including the release of a Congressional Budget Office analysis concluding the bill’s impact on average households would be around $170 a year in higher costs — far below the $3,100 or more Republicans have been warning

This article is simply more media propaganda for the administration.

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy said, "Savings from reduced energy use will be reinvested locally, creating a multiplier effect that will generate economic activity and jobs."

Reuters cites the ACEEE as if they are non-partisan analysts. They are lobbyists for this bill.

From a news release from their own website:


Energy Efficiency Provisions Will Create 650,000 Jobs by 2030

June 9, 2009 [Revised June 23, 2009]

Washington, D.C.—The federal energy efficiency provisions included in H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, could save approximately $750 per household by 2020 and $3,900 per household by 2030, according to a preliminary analysis by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). The bill provides an important step forward in addressing climate change through energy efficiency and other means of reducing heat-trapping greenhouse gases…

Obviously, all of this is pure mendacity. There will be no savings. Moreover, the bill itself admits that costs will go up.

But don’t worry, ‘the poor’ are slated to get rebates. Which is the real purpose of this bill in the final analysis.

It is just another form of income redistribution – and another way for the Federal Government to get more control over every aspect of our lives.

Our good friend Mark Levin has assembled a list of the Congressmen who may still be persuadable on this subject:

Republicans Democrats

Bartlett (MD)

Bono Mack (CA)

Castle (DE)

Dent (PA)

Ehlers (MI)

Frelinghuysen (NJ)

Gerlach (PA)

Inglis (SC)

Tim Johnson (IL)

Kirk (IL)

Lance (NJ)

LoBiondo (NJ)

Petri (WI)

Platts (PA)

Ros-Lehtinen (FL)

Altmire (PA)

Bright (AL)

Dahlkemper (PA)

Drieshaus (OH)

Ellsworth (IN)

Kissell (NC)

Kratovil (MD)

Kanjorski (PA)


Teague (NM)

Call them at 202-224-3121.

It is still not too late.


Alas, it is now too late. At least for stopping this in the House. The final vote turned out to be: 219 yea (8 Republicans) 212 nay (44 Democrats).

We have Republicans Bono Mack, Castle, Kirk, Lance, LoBiondo, McHugh, Reichert, Smith (NJ) to thank.

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, June 26th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

60 Responses to “The Biggest Tax Increase In US History”

  1. Rusty Shackleford says:

    “Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.”

    Damn the torpedoes, FULL SPEED AHEAD!!!!

    What a bunch of idiots. Well, on the good side, as Steve pointed out, with the destruction of our ever-so-fragile economy, so goes the destruction of the democrats. They act as if they don’t even realize this. Absolute power, I guess.

    And besides, THEY won’t have to pay for it.

    • jobeth says:

      “It is tempting to let the Democrats run completely amok and pass this bill and the upcoming Obama healthcare program. The resulting destruction to our economy would almost certainly destroy the Democrat Party for generations.”

      I caught that too.

      Since I am so fearful we will have this rammed down our throats anyway…that little sparkle of destroying the Democrat Party is a tiny light in a very dark horizon.
      If and when we get back to sanity, it will take years to get this country back to normal. It would be nice though for a few years to have the adults in charge.

      We can only hope.

      We are in for a very rough time for at least a generation in trying to untangle this ball of string that the “I Won” has tangled so well for us.

    • retire05 says:

      I want to bumb this to the top, because while there is a lot of moaning going on, and rightfully so, no one is talking about how really bad this bill is.

      The amendment, that was filed at 3:09 a.m., before any Republicans were made aware it was going to be filed, is the most atrocious piece of legislation ever imposed on the American public. So let me, your humber Retire05, tell you just how bad it is:

      Every appraiser in the U.S. will have to return to training in order to be able to do “energy efficiency” determinations when they appraise your property.

      No home can be bought, sold or built unless it “passes” the energy efficiency study. If you want to sell your home, you will have to bring the home up to standards, not yet set, which are going to be determined by the Secretary of Energy and be able to prove to the buyer it meets those standards. Let me give you an example:
      I live in a 107 year old home. Many of my windows are the original windows that are single pane, hand blown glass. I have two rooms that have yet to be insulated. I will have to bring my home up to the yet-to-be-determined code (energy efficiency code) before I could sell it. My HVAC system, while it works perfectly fine, will have to be replaced because it will not meet the NEW codes for HVAC systems. I would have to spend tens of thousands of dollars just to sell my house.

      Every home, business and building in the U.S. will eventually have to have an electrical outlet on the outside of the building that is capable of charging an electric/hybred vehicle. Nevermind that it will become cost prohibitive to drive an electric hybred vehicle.

      State building codes will have to comply with federal energy standards (usurpting the 10th Amendment AGAIN).

      Every city, town and village will have to have an energy “inspector” even if they don’t have a police force or city hall (as some small incorporated areas in Texas). The “inspector” will have to report to the Department of Energy the percentage of yet undetermined compliance rules. This means an added level of bureacracy to every city, town an village, the cost of which will be picked up by local taxes.

      As energy (heating/cooling) costs increase, there will be federally funded rebate checks to those who are low income. An Earned Income Credit increase will be given to eligible couples who have no children. This, boys and girls, is a massive redistribution of wealth scam.

      Special consideration will be given to low income families who buy homes throught Freddie/Fannie, IF they purchase a energy “compliant” home, and credit rating requirements will be reduced (why we are where we are now) in order to put them into the “energy efficient” house.

      Businesses will be inspected for their carbon “output” (creating a whole new government agency). If they don’t comply with the yet determined regulations, they will not only be forced to purchase carbon credits (a scam that will make Jeffrey Immelt and Al Gore filthy rich) but will have to also invest in energy updating during the same time. This is simply going to force companies to pass on that cost to consumers or go out of business.

      You can’t imagine how bad this bill is.

      The whole idea is to reduce carbon use by reducing consumption. But here is the problem. Reduced consumption also means reduced production. Reduced production means reduced need for labor. Reduced need for labor means higher unemployment.

      Many companies are going to learn that compliance is cost prohibitive and will move off shore. But never fear, the Democrats thought about that as well. Any nation who imports its products into the U.S. will have to show that 85% of what they import is compliant with our yet-to-be-determined energy laws. In the ’30’s, it was called protectionism, and this will only create trade wars with nations like China, India, Mexico, Siri Lanka, Tailand, and all other nations that don’t have our energy standards. Not only will we not be buying their products, they won’t be buying ours as their money flow will dry up.

      The bill makes the Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, the most powerful man in America, outside of Obama. It grants him powers never before given to any unelected official, even under FDR. And if you think that is not frightening, do a little research on Steven Chu. He is a One-Worlder who thinks that everyone should be forced to paint their roofs white to reduce global warming.

      This bill, if it passes the Senate, will be the one most economy killing actions ever taken in Washington, D.C. Anyone who gets their power from a coal-fired plant can expect to see 30-40-50+ increases in their electric bills. Jobs will be lost. Spain estimated that for every green job it produced with its oppressive “green” legislation, 2.2 jobs were lost.

      Deals were literally being cut on the floor of the House as certain Democrats from the midwest were seeing their states lose jobs right before their eyes. So Waxman was promising that “exemptions” would be written into the final bill for those states, while other states, like Texas will be hit with the government sledge hammer.

      It was the most disgraceful display of cronyism I have ever seen. And even then, 44 Democrats realized that if they voted for this bill, they were going to be voted out of a job. But they shouldn’t worry, there is a provision in the bill that if you lose your job due to the new requirements in this bill, you unemployment benefits would be extended (again, violating the 10th Amendment).

      The blue dogs hung back, waiting to vote until the last minute. When the yea vote reached 217, the blue dogs then voted “nay” to protect their Congressional seats in their home districts. It was pure Kabuki.

      Yesterday morning, I called my rep, Lloyd Doggett, and was promised that he would vote against the bill. I was told that Congressman Doggett understood that the bill was a job killer for Texas that is so heavily invested in oil/gas jobs. I was told that calls were coming in 10-1 against the bill. Later that afternoon, he flipped and voted “yea”.

      This bill can be defeated in the Senate. It is not too late. We have until probably early September to work on those Democratic Senators who should be told, loud and clear, they will be in the unemployment lines next November if they vote for this bill.

    • neocon mom says:

      Thanks for your excellent, eye-opening post. I am going to include these points in my next communication with Senator Bill Nelson. Even though he voted for the Stimulus, he voted against TARP, so I’m going to call and e-mail ’til I get a cease and desist letter :)

    • Petronius says:

      retire05: “Every city, town and village will have to have an energy “inspector” . . . .”

      It is difficult to imagine a system that would be more conducive to abuse, bribery, and corruption.

      Thank you retire05 for this thoughtful post.

    • retire05 says:

      This bill will affect every aspect of our daily lives, from every bite we take to every thing we buy. It is control through oppression on steroids.

      Yesterday, as I watched the whole Kabuki dance, the Democrats repeated the mantra of “millions of American dollars going for foreign oil”. Not once did a Repubican ask them if the Democrats are so concerned about our use of foreign oil, the Democrats have now blocked almost every attempt to drill on our own soil. Nor did anyone bother to mention that the largest amount of our foreign oil comes from (tah-dah) Mexico and Canada? When we stop buying their oil, that should really make our neighbors have a thrill go down their leg.

      This bill was not about jobs created or even about green energy. This bill was about control.

      Jefferson, Franklin and Adams are rolling over in their graves. Franklin was right when he said “a democracy, madame, if you can keep it.” Seems we have not been able to keep it.

  2. BannedbytheTaliban says:

    Have no fear! Obama says the Waxman-Markey is really a green jobs bill…how Orwellian.

    If this passes, 10% unemployment will be considered ‘full employment.”

  3. proreason says:

    It’s hard to understand the motivation behind this nonsense.

    One theory would be that Democrats are really stupid enough to believe the global warming charade. But even if they do, they have to know this will have no impact whatsoever on CO2.

    Another theory would be that, like the Moron, they want to punish the country. But even for Democrats, I can’t quite believe that except for mentally ill people like the Moron and Drooling Barney.

    Another theory is that know that they can’t get the American people to agree to more taxes, so this bill is simply a tax increase disguised as something else. The motivation for this theory is raw naked power. They want to control more of the economy.

    Thinking it through, it has to be the last one.

    To defeat it, it should be called a tax increase, pure and simple, and one that hurts the people who can least afford it.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      The trick is, Pro, that these types of tax increases have the opposite effect of their desired outcome, which…is more $$ in the government’s coffers for “redistribution”. As pointed out, the American consumer, mostly the poor, will have to devote a larger percentage of their income to pay for this crap. At the pump; in their electric bill; Hell, just to buy a pack of gum. So, ipso-facto, spending on luxuries goes down…and even on some necessities: Milk, eggs, etc.

      Democrats never consider the systemic effects of their “legislation”; Only the dollar signs they see the way little kids look at toys through a store window.

      And what’s more, they don’t care.

      They will defend this to the death, believing the lie, and thinking it’s legitimate governance.

    • texaspsue says:

      This tax will officially turn us into a Third World Country. USA/Americans cannot afford this tax.

    • proreason says:

      “these types of tax increases have the opposite effect of their desired outcome, which…is more $$ in the government’s coffers for “redistribution”.

      That’s right, Rusty.

      Which tends to make me think the Boy King isn’t really all that keen on redistribution, but rather just using the concept to gain power.

      I think the motivations for The Moron are in this order:
      1. Power
      2. Revenge (i.e., punish whitey, businessmen, America, Christianity, normal people, straight people)
      3. Parceling out a tiny fraction of the booty (i.e., redistribution)

      In general, you have heard me talk about him as a dictator/facist/power maniac moreso than as a racist/redistributor. There is a lot of that in him, but I think power is the key for him and his trainers.

      I also think that is mostly true for Congress, although I don’t really believe the white crooks are all that into revenge. As they see it, they just need to lie enough to retain a voting majority.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      So you’re saying that “regular-guy-barry” is not only doing a snow job on the ‘Merican peeps” but also on congressmen and senators. As in, he’s got his arm around ‘ol Teddy Kennedy but a knife at his side, and he really hates that “Uppity white-boy from massash, meshhs, uh….that New England state, with the island…there…in the ocean…with that…..hooky part that the pilgrims stole”.

      I woudn’t be surprised. It fits. But like I said, follow HIS money and see just how much he is profiting off of this gig as prez.

    • proreason says:

      “he’s got his arm around ‘ol Teddy Kennedy but a knife at his side”

      Kennedy is probably one of the puppet-masters. He is the progeny of a major American political crime boss, and now the patriarch of that mob. I don’t know who all of them are, but certainly, the Kennedy’s are in on the scam.

      What is more interesting, though, is whether The Moron is getting out of control. I mean, they put him in the POTUS chair, but once there, he has power independent of his trainers. And as I look at what he is doing in foreign affairs, I find it hard to believe that putting the POTUS’ arms around Muslim thugs is what Kennedy, et al, had in mind.

      So I wouldn’t be surprised if we don’t see a schism soon……and potentially a violent one. The puppet masters have to be weighing the benefit of creating permanent serfdom in America vs a 100,000% increase in the risk of a world war. After all, if Teddie doesn’t want any windmills ruining the view from Hyannisport, what must he be thinking about mushroom clouds.

    • jobeth says:

      Pro…the funny thing about the windmill thing is that Kennedy can’t even see them from Hyannisport. He has to go waaay out in his very ungreen fossil fuel guzzling yacht to even see them.

      Of course they can be ugly when you are trying to woo some young thing behind your wife’s back (in years past). I understand they can be noisy too, especially when trying to whisper sweet nuthins’. Causes you to have to yell in her ear. Somehow it spoils the moment.

      As to the power thing. I agree .”As they see it, they just need to lie enough to retain a voting majority.”

      I heard someone say once, that the only goal is to stay in power. Do whatever to whoever if it just keeps you in power. That’s the end game. What the means is/are is of no consequence or matter.

      That seems to be across the board. Reps and Dems. I say we kick ’em all out and start all over. And I sure wish for term limits.

      But look at me…dreaming the impossible dream again. *yawn*

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      ProReason said:
      “Kennedy is probably one of the puppet-masters.”

      I suspect you are correct but it could be very comical in a pathetic sort of way if, as you say, Blammo goes completely off the reservation. Oh how the party-leaders will try to reel him in…tamely at first, so as not to arouse suspicion, then like a B movie, coming down to having to face reality…as in Clinton’s case with the “that woman” deal.

      Can’t you just picture it, a la “Godfather” sytle….with Teddy sitting behind the big desk….”an so….my friend, Barack…I must tell you this on this day…..this, the day of my daughter’s wedding….that I have done this thing for you…..and you ……you give me no respect…..”

      But exactly how would they politically “whack” Blammo?

      Like they did with Joe Pesci in “Goodfellas”?

      Like they did with Jack Nicholson in “Hoffa”?

      Or just abandon him and let him hang out to dry like freshly cleaned fish?

      Personally, if the democrats slowly started turning their backs on him, one by one if he continues to act independently, well, that would be good. But public ridicule would be best…if for any reason to watch the MSM wonder what to do with the taffy they have voluntarily stuck in their pockets and is now melting.

      Alack, alas…’tis but a dream, a spectre, a wisp of a hope.

  4. Chuckk says:

    The worst part of this legislation is all the obfuscation, all the smoke and mirrors. If an honest bill calling for a certain, well defined, tax increase was presented it would never pass. Instead we get this kind of garbage that no one, not even the people voting on it can understand. Who knows what the consquences will be ultimately? Certainly not the geniuses in Washington.

    • proreason says:

      “Who knows what the consquences will be ultimately? ”

      That is the core problem with big government.

      History says the consequences are far more likely to be very very bad, than good or even neutral.

  5. Enthalpy says:

    It seems that no one has read the bill, so no one could understand it. Therefore, each of them should vote against it in spite of the Presidential pressure to vote for it. The sooner we clean out these vermin, the better.

    • jobeth says:

      That would be a nice novelty! No one has read ANY 0of these obese, convoluted bills under Obalmy. Seems that is against Obalmy’s rules.

      One more blindfolded vote won’t be a problem to those voting.

      Don’t go holding your breath for your good idea…and its a good one. We don’t want to have to call 911 for you.

  6. I think the memo’s getting around. Tried calling the switchboard several times, it’s busy.

  7. pdsand says:

    I remember republicans being roundly chastised for trying to pass a gay marriage ban amendment during a period of economic downturn. Stick to what matters, they said. You would think the democrats would get the same treatment for trying to legislate the weather during a period of economic downturn. Oh yeah, that’s right.

  8. U NO HOO says:

    “the Kennedy’s are in on the scam”

    Yeah, like lil joe and his free oil scam for poor people for which he makes a hundred thou a year. Maybe more.


  9. pdsand says:

    That’s just pure reckless insanity to say that we will save X amount of dollars simply because we will have to spend less on fuel or electricity since we won’t be using as much. How much will we have to spend on the new efficient vehicle or the new everything else for that matter? Or more to the point, how much will we have to spend on funerals to bury those who froze to death in the winter but weren’t allowed to heat their homes?

  10. TwilightZoned says:

    In between calling, what must have been 50 times and still unable to get through, I watched this boondoggle on C-SPAN. The original bill has approximately 1,000 unread pages with an additional 300 pages of back door deals included by 1:30 am. It appeared none of the Republicans had a copy of the additional pages and when asked where they could be located were given no satisfaction by the chair and when asking for a 15 minute recess to get a copy were met with opposition to the recess. This whole scenario today made me ashamed and thoroughly disgusted how this government is being run. What a travesty!!! Take no prisoners in 2010!

  11. canary says:

    Obama and his liberal power seekers to own America, is determined to ful-fill his legacy that Democracy is bad and leaves the majority of people impoverished. This is the vicious cycle of his ancestors and the world countries who have been harmed by America pushing Democracy on them. The federal government will determine who get’s the “millions of jobs” Pelosi gushed of yesterday. Obama, Pelosi, none of these politicans practice what they preach, build green houses. The little people are to take up the slack of the elite.
    If there was a majic beans, it would in process and working. This is an empty
    drawing board.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Canary, you said it.

      It’s like I tell my friends when yet another pyramid scheme comes around and they tell me, “well I could be making 5,000 a month and could quit my job”.

      My response is, and always has been, “Look, take the gold rush of 1849. Thousands went to go stake a claim and very very few got rich. Those who did, did so by exploiting the greed of the masses who naively went there to make their fortune. But even more to the point…if this scheme is so great, why is it we’re just hearing about it now? Why haven’t millions jumped on it and are making their $5,000 per month NOW?” And I can guarantee you the answers are always the same and then I ask them to listen to themselves and ask themselves if they really believe it, or they just WANT to believe it.

      I have been successful in helping numerous people avoid blowing their own cash on crap schemes that just take their money. I got an e-mail from one the other day who told me the original person who tried to get her into it is now scrambling for more “contacts”.

      Bottom line, There really is nothing new under the sun. Similar plans have been tried in other nations…and failed. Similar ideas have sprung up here and shot down because at one time, we had more critical thinkers making decisions.

      And as Rush pointed out, it’s back again in a new suit, with a fresh look but the same old song and dance only the democrats realize that there are fewer who can, or who wish to, oppose it on logical grounds. Perhaps the intelligence base, what little there was, in government is simply GONE. No one there on either side can actually think objectively, critically and understand the facts. They may all be emotionally based neophytes who cannot think outside the box…a phrase very popular in the 80’s.

      Either way, we’re in trouble.

  12. beautyofreason says:

    Let’s see…..Obama promised to lower taxes for 95% of the American population. His campaign promised lower taxes for people making under $250k per year….then $150k as he was pressed for specifics.

    He obviously lied. Not so obvious, considering his poll numbers.

    The stimulus package is merely more debt that will need to be paid by the “average” American citizen later on. And the new carbon standards on automobiles will kick up in 2016; those measures alone will increase the cost of new vehicles by at least $1,000 per buyer, more if you buy electric vehicles. Not to mention the burden on industries expected from cap and trade.

    So the average American will pay thousands more over the long term because of this guy….sound like a tax break to you? I’m not strong with numbers or economics (my father was a calculus major, but I didn’t get his gift).

    Still, it’s not rocket science to know that
    increased government spending + taxes on vital industries =
    increased debt / cost =
    increased taxes and consumer prices to make up the difference.

    There is no free lunch!

    • canary says:

      Oboma said the cars would cost only 100 dollars more each because they only need a different tank. This is unreal, because if there was an easy answer we’d have it by down. This the onging pattern of putting the cart in front of the house.

  13. bronzeprofessor says:

    The situation is ripe for a conservative resurgence.

    The Democrats now have their fingerprints on multiple disasters.

    We are drawing down in Iraq, meaning the Democrats will no longer have that card to play.

    According to Gallup 40% of Americans are conservative.

    According to Rasmussen and some other polls, Republicans are trusted more on the economy and stand a good chance of beating Democrat incumbents in House elections.

    Obama’s popularity remains high, but it seems clear that the public distinguishes between Obama and the Democrats; as well, the public distinguishes between Obama as a person (whom they like) and Obama’s policies as political theory (which they dislike.)

    Bush is increasingly fading as a viable excuse.

    So let’s put our brains together and start brainstorming! What do conservatives do to move on our opportunity? What right-wing horses are out there to saddle up and donate to, for 2010? Any ideas?

    • proreason says:

      Romney – if things the dim dems continue to tank and he can shed Massachusetts Health Scare

      Newt – if The Moron continues to sail, because he is the one who can handle anything the press throws at him

      Sarah and /or Bobby – if they grow and prove they have developed the chops to handle the press

      Perry – if he can convince people he isn’t another swarmy politico

      Sanders – oh wait

      or the best yet….somebody who hasn’t emerged on the national stage, but who can handle the evil MSM and won’t sell out for some ephermeral voting block, and who is willing to tell the truth about The Moron without pulling the punch

    • neocon mom says:

      I agree wholeheartedly, and I think the margin of “victory” for this bill foreshadows a more difficult ride in the senate.
      Liberal Salon columnist Camille Paglia, who is an Obama fan, does also say that she thinks the stimulus bill is his Achilles heel. Even if it isn’t his undoing, there are perhaps enough moderate Democrat Senators (like Nelson here in FL) who will not further jeopardize their own futures by signing onto another dubious massive spending bill that no one could even be bothered to read.
      I say it’s better to purge the party now (rather than during election season) in terms of Sanford. Palin’s recent press hasn’t been to her disadvantage and Romney has an ability to criticize Obama that is substantive and doesn’t come off sounding petty or personal. It’s like hearing Ward Cleaver explain to Wally why one of Eddie Haskell’s schemes is bound to not work out so well. And listening to Romney sure makes me long for an adult in charge instead of this man-child.

    • neocon mom says:

      I love Liz Cheney so far but doubtful that she can get past the hurdle of the family name. Plus the legacy thing has been done with the Bushes and the dynasty thing attempted with the Clintons…but gosh darnit, I still like her.

    • bronzeprofessor says:

      proreason & neocon mom — here is where my horse betting stands for 2012, never mind 2010 just yet

      I’m ready to sign checks for a Romney/Cantor ticket. They’re both competent and photogenic, which means they’re ahead of Obama, who is photogenic but…. well, you know.

      Newt — Proreason, I think he’d be too much on the side of nostalgia. I finished reading BUCK WILD, a book about how Newt sold out and turned into a big spender in the 1990s. And that hair….

      Sarah/Bobby –Proreason, I agree with you, they need time to mature. Neocon mama, I agree Palin’s press isn’t a killer (or Jindal’s for that matter), but I think these two are our golden arrows, and we need to time them right. I say 2016 for Jindal, and 2020 for Palin. Jindal needs time to grow into his suit (literally, gain about 30 pounds) and Palin needs tutoring so she can answer more questions. I think 12 years of fermentation will help Palin a lot.

      Perry– Proreason, I don’t know enough about him. He looks smarmy and gross to me, but prove me wrong. What do you see in his favor?

      Sanford/Pawlenty/Huntsman/Barbour — While they are good governors, I say nay. To go against Obama we need somebody glamorous and good looking. I know it’s shallow, but that’s the way it is. Romney looks a graying stud, Cantor is a Ken doll that women will swoon over, and men will secretly go to the gym to emulate. Sanford’s repulsive, as we know now, and the other Repub governors just don’t have any sex appeal.

      Here are some others I’ve been thinking about —

      Condoleezza Rice. Would she ever consider running? I think she could handle the press, and I’ve always loved her.

      Liz Cheney. Neocon mom, I actually really dig her too, a lot. I am not ready to write her off yet. I think she can carve out an identity independent of her dad. And I’m not sure her dad is totally beyond recuperation yet, either.

      Petraeus. I want him to run in 2016 so badly. He’s my biggest hero right now.

    • neocon mom says:

      Yes, don’t know how I could have left out the good General! I would vote for him above all of the aforementioned in a primary.

    • proreason says:

      Petraeus: obviously a hero and a military genius. But we don’t know much yet about his politics and there is a huge difference between the military and the cesspool/americanidol/lieingwhenmylipsmove of American politics.

      I know there is a long tradition of military men reaching the WH…Washington, Jackson, Tyler, Harrison, Grant, Eisenhauer, perhaps others, but I’m not sure the military gives one a bump in the americanidol culture.

      Can a person of genuine honor really compete when the compeition will say any lie, advocate any smear, commit any crime, trigger any crisis to maintain power? For us on S&L, it’s an easy call…..but I’m not so sure that it would work against the biggest thug regime in the history of the country. The smears and lies against him and anybody he has known in his life will begin in the first minute.

      The other issue is that the General isn’t notably pretty.

      Even so, if he decides to explore the possibility and he does well with the barracudapress, I could jump to his side without much hesitation.

    • bronzeprofessor says:

      Thanks, proreason & NMom. Maybe I’m just a clueless straight guy, but I thought Petraeus was kind of handsome. Am I wrong? Maybe NMom can give us a woman’s point of view. I enjoy listening to him talk.

      I don’t actually think of Petraeus along the same lines as past military heroes, since many officers-turned-presidents were actually not very good as commander in chief. Washington was good, of course, but Jackson (in my opinion) founded everything I can’t stand about his Democrat Party — that business with the national bank, the Indian policies, the corruption, the bad populism. Franklin Pierce could rightfully be blamed for a great amount of the Civil War; his greatest gift to America was the the Republican Party was founded during Pierce’s presidency, largely because he was so bad. Ulysses Grant (my favorite president, for quirky reasons) is not viewed favorably by historians; neither are other famous veterans like McKinley, who got the US quagmired in the Philippines. I know lots of conservatives like Teddy Roosevelt, but I think of him as someone who caved to the Progressives and set the stage for big government. JFKennedy was a war hero and… well, you know the deal. Jimmy Carter and George HW Bush also had a lot of military experience and… well, you know the deal.

      But Petraeus is, to me, the ideal military hero to run for president, because he is cut from very different cloth. He has shown a great deal of aplomb in political matters, as evidenced by the way he has dealt with the tough Bush 2nd term as well as Obama’s arrival. He has a PhD and taught at Georgetown — not in military science, but in political affairs.

      I hear your reservations about him, proreason, but I think Petraeus is a true Renaissance man, and he would be the only man in America who could potentially resist the cesspool if he came to Washington. He’s no Ulysses Grant. (Though I like US Grant).

    • neocon mom says:

      Well, he’s not hunky but he has many attractive qualities. He is competent and confident but humble. Unflappable. Strong, silent type? You betcha.
      If you’ll indulge some cheap literary allegory from Jane Austen’s “Sense and Sensibility” (and pretend for a minute that Petraeus was squaring off against Obama):

      Marianne Dashwood–The U.S. electorate

      John Willoughby–Obama

      Colonel Brandon–General Petraeus

    • bronzeprofessor says:

      Haha, neocon Mom! Great, great literary gloss there. I don’t read much Austen, unfortunately. But I can totally see David Petraeus looking like the strong, silent, authentic alternative to the vainglorious, conceited, superficial fop that the swooning electorate once allowed to seduce them!

      The only problem with Petraeus is that I don’t think he would run against Obama in 2012. He would have to run against his own commander in chief. Maybe in 2016.

      But if you say, from a woman’s point of view, David Petraeus might be the object of at least some romantic fantasy (i.e., there he is, the gentle quiet type who will really protect me, etc.) then I have hope he may be viable in the Age of Obama. Otherwise the only way to reach a lot of female voters may be to put Romney and Cantor on massive workout regimes and exploit their pinup looks. Luckily, Romney and Cantor also happen to fiscally responsible.

  14. texaspsue says:

    John Boehner is fiibustering on the floor right now. (Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.) Watch C-Span. He’s kicking butt!

    • VMAN says:

      It seems the democraps cut him off and then Waxman got all “holier than thou” like he would never do anything like that.

  15. Steve says:

    Well, the bill has passed in the House.

    Final vote: 219 yea (8 GOP) 212 nay (44 Dems).

    There was even a ninth Republican who voted for it, but once he saw it was going to pass without his vote, he changed it to nay.

    What great and courageous men we have representing us in our Congress.

    • texaspsue says:

      The crap and notrade Bill. If the 8 Republicans would have stood true to Conservative principles, it wouldn’t have passed.

      SG, we need names!

    • Steve says:

      Bono Mack, Castle, Kirk, Lance, LoBiondo, McHugh, Reichert, Smith (NJ).

    • proreason says:

      They steal from us to live like princes.

    • texaspsue says:

      Thanks SG. I hope their constituents remember this day. Something tells me that they might be from Liberal districts though????

    • Barbie says:

      bronzeprofessor said: So let’s put our brains together and start brainstorming! What do conservatives do to move on our opportunity? What right-wing horses are out there to saddle up and donate to, for 2010? Any ideas?

      I’d say SG just provided a list of names (maybe not saddle up and donate to, but saddle up and donate against)…

    • Confucius says:

      Mr. Gilbert,

      Who was the ninth rat?

    • canary says:

      McHugh is a cruel, piece of sh*t, He plays both sides of the party’s. FY McHugh.

  16. Steve says:

    I still have yet to find a readable copy of this bill online.

    Thomas was down for maintenance the last time I checked.

    So much for Obama’s promise of transparency.

    • proreason says:

      How on earth can any rational person vote on a life-altering piece of legislation without knowing what’s in it.

      That alone, aside from all of the nutty ideology, should DICTATE voting no.

      The rack is too kind for these greedy, self-serving, power-mad, corrupt, ignorant, arrogant, sadistic criminals.

      And yes, I’m talking about every congress person who voted for this piece of shit.

    • texaspsue says:

      “How on earth can any rational person vote on a life-altering piece of legislation without knowing what’s in it.”

      Because they won. sigh.

      “So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.” -Voltaire-

      I put this video I found on twitter today for the #iranelection but, it seems appropriate in USA now:


      Okay, I’m being melodramatic…………maybe I just love the song. :-)

    • Barbie says:

      How could any reasonable and responsible rep vote on a bill that’s 1,300 pages and which hasn’t been read? What the hell is it with these people? They didn’t read the stimulus bill, either. Are they stupid? Are they corrupt? Are they both??
      (Looks like I wrote the same things others have written. Well, this outrage bears repeating)

    • Petronius says:

      Pro: “How on earth can any rational person vote on a life-altering piece of legislation without knowing what’s in it.”

      This is indeed tragic. But of course this is a rhetorical question, for, as all of us here at S&L know, when it comes to Liberalism and Liberal policies, then reason, knowledge, a businesslike approach, even basic, routine, conscientious attention to detail do not enter into the mix. Instead you get legislation with a sledge hammer. Legislation out of the barrel of a gun. You get rubbish and destruction. This is what you always get from unfettered, pure strength, Liberalism.

      Pro: “The rack is too kind . . . .”

      I concur. I also have to concur with texaspsue that it is time for Texas independence.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Will Texas accept a Californian refugee?

      We’re doomed.

    • canary says:

      Tanquil.night. There’s lot’s of room in Tx. You’d have some red states around ya too.

  17. MinnesotaRush says:

    “The rack is too kind for these greedy, self-serving, power-mad, corrupt, ignorant, arrogant, sadistic criminals.

    And yes, I’m talking about every congress person who voted for this piece of shit.”

    Right on, PR .. “this piece of shit” AND every other one they haven’t even read!

  18. Flession says:

    My faith in the people running the government has, yet again, been shattered to pieces.

    Can…can it be 2010 yet?

  19. Chuckk says:

    Anyone looking toward the next election in hopes the Republicans will win is delusional. The Republicans are just as corrupt and big government loving as the Democrats. Every time the Republicans have been given a chance to reduce government or slow spending, they failed miserably.

    Unfortunately I can not see a solution.

    • canary says:

      Chuck I think the media won’t give Republicans a change to speak out. The media runs the world. The media is a pathetic job. The don’t get paid well, and maybe that’s why they are so pro-democratic.

  20. joeblough says:

    Those faces in the photo …

« Front Page | To Top
« | »