Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Boxer Introduces Carbon Tax Bill 3 Months After WH Promised 'We Would Never Propose' One

page: 1
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
It's baaaack!! I guess Boxer didn't get the memo


Today, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced a bill to levy a carbon tax. But, back on Nov. 15 of last year, Pres. Obama's press secretary promised the administration would "never" do so.

According to Reuters, the new tax law "would set a $20 tax for each ton of carbon dioxide equivalent a polluter would emit beyond a set limit, which would rise 5.6 percent annually over a 10-year period."

Last November, however, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that would never happen:

"We would never propose a carbon tax, and have no intention of proposing one. The point the President was making is that our focus right now is the same as the American people's focus, which is on the need to extend economic growth, expand job creation. And task number one is dealing with these deadlines that pose real challenges to our economy, as he talked about yesterday."

cnsnews.com...

See the pattern of empty rhetoric and meaningless lip service...What a difference 3 months makes? I guess they thought no one would notice... Remember Obama's state of the union. Jobs and the economy are supposed to be Numero Uno for the administration.... Much like Carney said back in November. Boxers Bill would be completely counterintuitive to the economic improvement of our crippled nation.




posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   
I'm not sure if you know this or not...but Obama doesn't control everyone...Boxer can introduce whatever she wants to despite what Obama's intentions are.

But hey...anything for an anti-Obama thread...huh?



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   
The White house promised not to do a lot of things the reality has been so very different. Lip service indeed since they are all so concerned with the economy that a carbon tax, just like all "climate change" legislation has destroyed jobs,weath, and has led to massive outsourcing.

Bring back manufacturing they say they are escalating Chinas dominance in the world markets this nation is a has been.

Every policy that comes from the current administration, and the Boxers of this country are making damn sure we stay there.
edit on 14-2-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
We almost have to judge the quality of our leaders based on promise to lies ratio's.


However, In any large bureaucratic structure, sometimes the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing, but this is far from an excuse for such public promises.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


Yeah .. this has a good chance of getting passes in the house.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
She must have learnt this trick from our Australian Prime Minister. We were told this -=>

www.youtube.com...

Yet once she got her buttocks into the PM's seat she quickly introduced one.

I'm sorry, America. It seems your politicians have learnt a dirty little game from ours...

edit on 14/2/13 by TRiPWiRE because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
HE IS THE EFFING PRESIDENT OF THE USA!!!!

He damn well better control everything!! Commander in chief......Lamens terms means IN CHARGE OF EVERYTHING


Really? So, there is no need for a congress then? The US Constitution disagrees with your statement. I suppose he should start sidestepping all of the right-wing obstructionism and just dictate his wishes by executive order, huh?


Just as Obama can not control the Republican/Tea Party congress, neither can he control the Democrats in congress.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein
 



HE IS THE EFFING PRESIDENT OF THE USA!!!!

He damn well better control everything!! Commander in chief......Lamens terms means IN CHARGE OF EVERYTHING




Thanks for showing your complete lack of knowledge of how our government works.

He does not control congressmen/women...they can do whatever they want. Commander in chief does not translate to "IN CHARGE OF EVERYTHING"....you need a civics class.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


Boxer is a good little Obama foot soldier. Just like you...
Lock Step, Lock Step, Goose Step, Goose Step...



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


Yeah some people do need a civics class like the house,senate and the executive currently the D's control 2/3rd's of the government.

But wait where were all those "obstructionists" from the left during those illegal wars?

Then again the care act. and that massive stimulus bill because that is what the potus wanted as per the STOU climate legislation was rehashed yet once again.

But by all means please continue blaming the party that only hold 1 branch of government, and completely dismiss all the EO's of the past 4 years.
edit on 14-2-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeatherNLace

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
HE IS THE EFFING PRESIDENT OF THE USA!!!!

He damn well better control everything!! Commander in chief......Lamens terms means IN CHARGE OF EVERYTHING


Really? So, there is no need for a congress then? The US Constitution disagrees with your statement. I suppose he should start sidestepping all of the right-wing obstructionism and just dictate his wishes by executive order, huh?


Just as Obama can not control the Republican/Tea Party congress, neither can he control the Democrats in congress.


Funny how you mention no need for congress. In Obama's eyes you are correct. Hence his fondness for executive orders and recess appointments. etc etc.. The Constitution is nothing but a piece of paper to Obama. He studied it long enough to figure out how to slide around it...



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I never have a damn clue what you are ranting about.

You never seem to be on topic, and your rants are disjointed and just all over the place.

I give up trying to respond to you, because it really isn't productive.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by neo96
 


I never have a damn clue what you are ranting about.

You never seem to be on topic, and your rants are disjointed and just all over the place.

I give up trying to respond to you, because it really isn't productive.


Really so what does that post have to do with Boxer's carbon tax after the Whitehouse said they would never propose one?

edit on 14-2-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


This is a brilliant move by Boxer... Carney said "they would never propose it" meaning the WH. That's what lemmings like Boxer are for. Let her take the heat so the focus stays off the White House. It's hilarious...Obama does control his die hard water carriers... He's the one dangling the carrot in front of them..



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by neo96
 


This is a brilliant move by Boxer... Carney said "they would never propose it" meaning the WH. That's what lemmings like Boxer are for. Let her take the heat so the focus stays off the White House. It's hilarious...Obama does control his die hard water carriers... He's the one dangling the carrot in front of them..


I think you need a civics lesson too.

The White House can never propse legislation.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
Funny how you mention no need for congress. In Obama's eyes you are correct. Hence his fondness for executive orders and recess appointments. etc etc..



After today’s appointment, President Obama will have made a total of 29 recess appointments. By comparison, George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments; Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments; George H.W. Bush made 77 recess appointments; and Ronald Reagan made 243.


thinkprogress.org...


Executive Orders made by the last 6 Presidents: Jimmy Carter: 320; Ronald Reagan: 381; George Bush: 166; William J. Clinton: 364; George W. Bush: 291; Barack Obama: 147


en.wikipedia.org...

Every President in the History of the US has made recess appointments and issued Executive Orders. You need to find another topic to feign outrage over.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by LeatherNLace
 


Oh so now they are actually EO's ?

That is not what the administration supporters say they were "executive actions".

So which way is it?

And the issue is illegal recess appointments as in :


In a case freighted with major constitutional implications, a federal appeals court on Friday overturned President Obama’s controversial recess appointments from last year, ruling he abused his powers and acted when the Senate was not actually in a recess. Read more: www.washingtontimes.com... Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter



Apparently the current potus is the one who needs a civics lesson.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by neo96
 


This is a brilliant move by Boxer... Carney said "they would never propose it" meaning the WH. That's what lemmings like Boxer are for. Let her take the heat so the focus stays off the White House. It's hilarious...Obama does control his die hard water carriers... He's the one dangling the carrot in front of them..


I think you need a civics lesson too.

The White House can never propse legislation.


What exactly would you call Obama's Gun Law proposal that has kept him busy in campaign mode since January. Yes, they can propose legislation. They just don't write the actual legislation. Unless of course it is an Executive order :Lol:


The initiative to reduce gun violence announced by President Obama on Wednesday includes both legislative proposals that would need to be acted on by Congress and executive actions he can do on his own. Many of the executive actions involve the president directing agencies to do a better job of sharing information.


I sourced the NYTimes just so you would approve... Plenty of legislation has originated as a White House proposal over the years..


Proposed Congressional Actions. www.nytimes.com...



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by LeatherNLace
 


Oh so now they are actually EO's ?

That is not what the administration supporters say they were "executive actions".

So which way is it?


It depends on which ones you are talking about. Certainly, Obama has issued Executive Orders. However, If you are referring to those 21 things he signed in regards to guns, then those are most certainly Executive Actions. Perhaps you could be a bit more specific about which ones you are referring to.




And the issue is illegal recess appointments as in :


In a case freighted with major constitutional implications, a federal appeals court on Friday overturned President Obama’s controversial recess appointments from last year, ruling he abused his powers and acted when the Senate was not actually in a recess. Read more: www.washingtontimes.com... Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter



Apparently the current potus is the one who needs a civics lesson.


Perhaps those 3 Judges that ruled the Recess Appointments unconstitutional need a civics lesson; or perhaps judges that made rulings under previous presidents need the civics lesson. From your source:


The judges’ ruling puts them at odds with several other federal appeals courts that have ruled the other way. Read more: www.washingtontimes.com... Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter



Presidents have used recess appointments to fill vacancies that opened before a recess since the 1820s, and have made recess appointments during Senate breaks in the midst of sessions going back to 1867. But the three judges, all appointed by Republicans, said the original meaning of the words used in the Constitution clashed with subsequent historical practices.

Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said: “The decision is novel and unprecedented. It contradicts 150 years of practice by Democratic and Republican administrations.


www.nytimes.com...

The manner and timing in which Obama made those appointments is consistent with precedents set by previous administrations; including Bush 1 & 2, R.Reagen, etc...

Nevertheless, the SCOTUS will hear this case and make a final ruling on it's constitutionality; something they should have done long ago...long before Obama became president.

edit on 14-2-2013 by LeatherNLace because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join