It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Where is the link to the article? And in your first paragraph alone, you used a nice scare tactic and amped up 2-3 times what people are going to pay for power in just one short paragraph, with absolutely no proof whatsoever.
Missouri residents can expect their electric bills to jump 12 percent to 50 percent by 2012 if the U.S. Senate passes a bill that caps carbon dioxide emissions and establishes a system for trading and buying emissions allowances, according to a study by the state's utilities.
And by 2020, the study suggests, average electric rates in Missouri could soar from 25 percent to a staggering 77 percent if a cap-and-trade system forces utilities to switch to natural gas from coal - the primary energy source for the Show-Me State and several others, including Ohio, Iowa and Utah. Missouri generates some 82 percent of its electricity by burning coal.
You got a letter from your power company stating that?
Don't you think before you post?
Don't you think that their information is going to be a little biased?
I would like to hear from all the liberals on cap and trade, why they think that it is a good idea. All the obama supporters what do ya think of that. Are you okay with your energy bill going up more then $1,000 a year? What logical reason do you have to support this disaster? Let me hear it.
So, you are saying that our electric bills are not going to go up? Get your head out of your A*SS. Seriously, are you that out of touch with reality? God help us all.
I can't wait till you get your bill, once all this goes through, and you can't afford to pay it because it is so high. Then, when you are sitting in a house that is pitch black I can laugh at you for being so ignorant and stupid.
Originally posted by Animal
Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Middle America, if you will.
Cap and Trade will destroy them.
there will be no 'middle america' by the time CT rolls around.
CT will not happen if it will cause such a rise in taxes (15%), period.
both true but unsurprisingly ignored because it is more fun and heart pumping to be on the attack.
Originally posted by Animal
reply to post by jdub297
but those dam green liberals must be stopped, right. . .
The head of the Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday countered Obama administration claims that a landmark climate bill would be a boost to the economy.
President Barack Obama and Senate Democrats championing the bill have said mandating greenhouse-gas caps, renewable energy and efficiency standards would be a boon to an ailing economy, creating new low-carbon industries. Millions of so-called green jobs would be created under the cap-and-trade legislation being considered in the Senate, Democrats say.
The CBO estimates that the House-passed climate legislation, a template for the Senate version, would reduce gross domestic product by up to 0.75% by 2020 and 3.5% by 2050.
Tell us how you propose Americans proceed next year with your alternative. You (like so many others so far) can not and will not.
I challenge you: Show us your valid alternative to "the corporate spawn of cancer-capitalism."
regulate, regulate, regulate. for the last 30 years the tendency of every leader has been de-regulation and as a direct result we have seen the systematic dismantlement of the middle class; the accumulation of the majority of the wealth within the smallest percentile of our population; the financial ruin of our government; and the control of our government seized by the ultra-wealthy individuals and corporations.
This is not "political and moralistic-sounding blather" and it has a very good place in "real lives and real jobs and families" and if we were to turn the clock back 30 years in terms of regulation and trade policy we would see massive economic changes for the betterment of the nation.
Originally posted by jdub297
In economics, "regulate" only means that certain policies permit the flow of capital and certain others restrict it.
require that investors receive financial and other significant information concerning securities being offered for public sale
prohibit deceit, misrepresentations, and other fraud in the sale of securities.
Originally posted by jdub297
In so far as (that was never a good "word") consumer lending is concerned, LIBERAL "regulation" dictated the free flow of capital to less-than-qualified borrowers with less-than-legitimate "collateral."
MBA’s Vice President for Research and Economics. “For example, while subprime ARMs represent 6 percent of the loans outstanding, they represented 39 percent of the foreclosures started during the first quarter. Prime ARMs represent 15 percent of the loans outstanding, but 23 percent of the foreclosures started. Out of the approximately 516,000 foreclosures started during the first quarter, subprime ARM loans accounted for about 195,000 and prime ARM loans 117,000, but the increase in prime ARM foreclosures exceeded subprime ARM foreclosures with increases of 29,000 and 20,000 respectively over the previous quarter.”
In so far as "banking" is concerned, LIBERAL regulation required that lending institutions be allowed to compete with "investment" banks, thus enabling your local S&L to engage with Lehman Bros. (Bad results)
30 years ago, your bank did not buy CDOs or CDS's to "keep up with the Jones's". Bill Clinton and Barney Frank and Chris Dodds thought it would be best if they did. That way, you and your neighbors would get the same "opportunities" to reap windfall profits as the other guys. WHAT IDIOTS!
Again, when you have learned enough basic economics, we can probably have a really neat-o chat.
'til then, get your basics in order.
He is systematically destroying everything that hard working Americans spent centuries building.