Obama's nightmare "Green Agenda" officially unvieled

How can a green agenda to save our planet be considered a "nightmare"?

Does the economy come first or our planet? Why make something look "evil" when deep down you know it is the right thing to do?

Sure it will cost money and be a tough transition but doing nothing to cut down on pollution for the sake of a "strong economy" is stupid beyond belief! Unless 90% of our scientists really have no clue what they are talking about we need to act now with all possible means.

I'm all for a green transition BUT it must be responsibly. It must be a gradual change and there must incentives for people and big business to buy in on it.

The electric car is here, built by Honda, exported to California and driving on your Roads, the internal combustion engine will go the way of the VHS video, the oil magnates are already ahead of the game and selling Hydrogen in their forecourts in California and guess what its the same price as gas, the most abundant never go done hydrogen, freely available being sold in California the same price as gas - now sit back and watch General Motors, Ford, Chrysler and all the rest suddenly develop oil free electric cars. Apart from profits I see this as a good thing its time to bring new technology to the fore and tell OPEC and the Russia we will not be held to ransom.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus



All I am doing is providing information on where to see these bills. What you do with the information is not my problem. You seem to have a need to be apprehensive with my responses.

So I will get a few of your gripes out of the way.

1.

I was one of the people who received advanced copies of both versions of the bailout bill. I was one of the first to dissect it. And I was one of the first to be totally against it.

2.

Yes I do think things will be done differently. And here's why:

New open rules to FOIA is definitely a plus and much needed in order to hold anyone to account. The problem with the bailout bill is that the Treasury Dept. and the Fed have the authority for needless secrecy. I think that veil is about to come down.

www.whitehouse.gov...

And here's the site of the Federal Register where these guidelines will be placed:

www.gpoaccess.gov...

Transparency and Open Government guidelines which is probably why Obama has become more press friendly. We are finally going to get answers to the questions we have.

www.whitehouse.gov...

Presidential Records guidelines which puts Obama as much on the hot seat of accountability as it does Bush. Good thing as far as I'm concerned.

www.whitehouse.gov...

Ethics Guidelines for his administration and those directly under his direction are the strictest ever in the history of the Presidency. Read it before you rail against it. It helps.

www.whitehouse.gov...


Yes, things will be done differently. There's no question about it. But with a more transparent government we will be able to at least see how things are working out. Let the guy work man.

Look man I'm not an Obama supporter. And it was this election season that turned me into a political atheist. But I give credit where credit is due. And so far it has been impressive. I will read and dissect the draft bill as soon as it comes across my desk, then we will see whether it has a chance in hell to work for the American people. But please don't assume that just because I agree with a few of the steps he has taken so far, that I will agree with everything he does. I get paid to make the government hang themselves no matter who is in power. My job is to expose and report on abuses, illegalities, and ethics violations by any administration, national, state or local.






[edit on 25-1-2009 by projectvxn]

reply to post by semperfortis


If you think Obama has ANY agenda that is not self serving for himself and his loyal cronies, you better re-think it.

This man will NEVER put America first, he has proven that! And even promised in his book, that if it comes down to it, he will side with Muslims.

There is nothing to "admire" here.

reply to post by slicobacon


Yes ideally speaking it should be a gradual transition with incentitives for people and bussiness BUT is time on our side? Can we really afford a slow transition at this point?

In other words I partially agree with you in that an 80% reduction by 2050 in CO2 emmissions is quite unreasonable/unrealistic...and even if this is achievable it will put a tremendous strain on everyone. If I were president I would have proposed a 40% reduction by 2050 and a 70% reduction by 2100.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


We have no choice but a gradual transition. The world does have the economic resources to make a rapid transition and even if it did, there is not enough material or trained personnel to make what is required in a short period of time.

reply to post by Animal

I say, Really? Not even a week in office and yu can already see him 'reneging'? On what for example?

For one, he promised to help seniors, by lowering or eliminating taxes on those that "earn" less than $50,000 a year. The new Stimulus bill specifically EXCLUDES seniors that are retired, EVEN THOUGH, such seniors are paying federal income tax on their retirement income. The "tax credits" of $500 per person or $1000 per couple are only on EARNED income, and retirement income, even when it is a defined retirement plan, is NOT considered earned income. (I am NOT talking about IRA's, 401K's or other forms of retirement, I am talking about a defined retirement payment, paid directly by the employer to retired employees.)

In addition, he has already said that universal health care will NOT be able to be accomplished, due to the financial crisis.

Furthermore, he said he would pull the troops out of Iraq, soon after being elected. He now says it will take 16 months, which is EXACTLY the agreement that Bush signed with Iraq well before the election.

Here is another broken promise, as reported by PolitiFact:

Obama signs first law without Web comment Updated: Thursday, January 29th, 2009 | By Angie Drobnic Holan One of President Obama's major campaign planks was making government more open and accountable. It's a reaction to a habit in Congress of rushing bills through the House and Senate without giving people much opportunity to know what the bills would do. Indeed, sometimes members of Congress don't even know what's in the bills. So Obama pledged during the campaign to institute "sunlight before signing." "Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them," Obama's campaign Web site states. "As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days." But the first bill Obama signed into law as president -- the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act -- got no such vetting. In fact, the Congressional Record shows that the law was passed in the Senate on Jan. 22, 2009, passed in the House on Jan. 27, and signed by the president on Jan. 29. So only two days passed between the bill's final passage and the signing. The legislation was not posted to the White House Web site for comment in any way that we could find. We see no way the bill could be deemed emergency legislation, even taking the broadest view. The bill overturns the effects of a Supreme Court decision that limited when workers could sue for pay discrimination. Most pertinently, the bill is retroactive to the time of the court decision -- May 28, 2007. Obama earned a Promise Kept from us for signing the law. But it would have the same effect if had been signed a few days later, so it's clearly not an emergency. We asked the White House about this and if they planned to begin posting laws to the Web site for comment soon, but we got no response. Obama signed the measure at 10:20 a.m. About two hours later, the White House posted the bill on its Web site with a link that asks people to submit comments. But the bill was already signed at that point. We recognize that Obama has been in office just a week, but he was very clear about his plan for a five-day comment period, and we can't see why this one needed to be rushed. It is somewhat ironic that with the same action, Obama both keeps and breaks a campaign promise. But there it is -- his first one. Promise Broken.

Of course, there is also this:

Obama's Election Night Speech: "Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long."(Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Election Night, Chicago, IL, 11/4/08)

and the corresponding appointment:

Emanuel Famously Earned The Title "Rahmbo" For His Hyper-Partisanship And Bare-Knuckle Tactics: "Emanuel's Reputation For Political Ruthlessness Earned Him The Nickname 'Rahmbo,' An Image Reinforced By A Legendary Episode When He Sent A Dead Fish To A Pollster Who Displeased Him." (Janet Hook, "Meet The Powers Behind The Democrats' Strategy," Los Angeles Times, 7/5/06) * Emanuel Calls Himself A "Vince Lombardi Democrat," Because He Believes "Winning Isn't Everything. It's The Only Thing." "Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), earlier this year called himself a 'Vince Lombardi Democrat.' It was Lombardi, the Hall of Fame football coach, who said, 'Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing.'" ("Chairman Rahm," The Hill, 12/14/05) * Emanuel's Political Style Was "Honed In Chicago" And Has A "Reputation As A Political Street Fighter." "But his political style--honed in Chicago and on the presidential campaign trail with Clinton--isn't gentle or uncertain. His reputation as a political street fighter inspires respect and more than a little fear." (Naftali Bendavid, "The House That Rahm Built," Chicago Tribune, 11/12/06) * "[Emanuel] Was Also Zealously Partisan. He Had Once Owned A Consulting Business Devoted To Finding Skeletons In Republican Closets." (Edward McClelland, "The Legend Of Rahm," Salon.Com, 5/8/07) Emanuel Told His Staff That Republicans Could "Go F--- Themselves!" "'I'll tell you this,' Emanuel shouted out to his staff. 'The Republicans may have the 72-hour program. But they have not seen the 22-month program! ... Since my kids are gone, I can say it: They can go ---- themselves!'" (Naftali Bendavid, "The House That Rahm Built," Chicago Tribune, 11/12/06) Emanuel Even Told Then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair Before An Appearance With President Clinton: "This Is Important. Don't F--- It Up." "Mr Emanuel is reputed to have walked up to Tony Blair before the prime minister's first public appearance with Mr Clinton, during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. 'This is important,' he told Mr Blair. 'Don't f--- it up.'" ("Former Ballet Dancer Turned Political Fixer," The [London, UK] Guardian, 11/10/06) Emanuel Attended A Meeting With Clinton Campaign Advisers Following The 1992 Campaign To Discuss Which Politicians And Members Of The Press They Would Seek Revenge Upon. "It was there that Emanuel, then Clinton's chief fund-raiser, repaired with George Stephanopoulos, Mandy Grunwald and other aides to Doe's, the campaign hangout. Revenge was heavy in the air as the group discussed the enemies - Democrats, Republicans, members of the press - who wronged them during the 1992 campaign. Clifford Jackson, the ex-friend of the President and peddler of the Clinton draft-dodging stories, was high on the list. So was William Donald Schaefer, then the Governor of Maryland and a D emocrat who endorsed George Bush. Nathan Landow, the fund-raiser who backed the candidacy of Paul Tsongas, made it, too." (Elisabeth Bumiller, "The Brothers Emanuel," The New York Times, 6/15/97) * "Suddenly Emanuel Grabbed His Steak Knife And, As Those Who Were There Remeber [Sic] It, Shouted Out The Name Of Another Enemy, Lifted The Knife, Then Brought It Down With Full Force Into The Table. 'Dead!' He Screamed." Suddenly Emanuel grabbed his steak knife and, as those who were there remeber [sic] it, shouted out the name of another enemy, lifted the knife, then brought it down with full force into the table. 'Dead!' he screamed. The group immediately joined in the cathartic release: 'Nat Landow! Dead! Cliff Jackson! Dead! Bill Schaefer! Dead!'" (Elisabeth Bumiller, "The Brothers Emanuel," The New York Times, 6/15/97) And Emanuel Has Among The Most Partisan Voting Records: In 2007, Emanuel Voted With The Democrats 98 Percent Of The Time. (Congressional Quarterly Website, www.cq.com, Accessed 10/31/08) In 2006, Emanuel Voted With The Democrats 92 Percent Of The Time. (Congressional Quarterly Website, www.cq.com, Accessed 10/31/08) In 2005, Emanuel Voted With The Democrats 95 Percent Of The Time. (Congressional Quarterly Website, www.cq.com, Accessed 10/31/08) In 2004, Emanuel Voted With The Democrats 97 Percent Of The Time. (Congressional Quarterly Website, www.cq.com, Accessed 10/31/08) In 2003, Emanuel Voted With The Democrats 95 Percent Of The Time. (Congressional Quarterly Website, www.cq.com, Accessed 10/31/08) [

4And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.

Green agenda indeed....................

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


Too funny man.

Sure I'll give you the tax cuts to the retired. The others are laughable.

My favorite was how you are trying to say that he made a statement about not falling back into partisan politics and then show Emanual as an example that he did.

Sure Emanual may be partisan, but all you have to do is look at the changes made to OBAMA's stimulus package to see he is playing both sides of the field.


Did Obama promise to have troops out of Iraq within weeks of taking office? Not that I remember.

Are you surprised that he is limited in what he can do financially not that we are in a depression? I am not.

You can pick apart anyone trying to make them look bad, but it is the amount of TRYING you do that makes your point look good or bad.

Yours I would say is rather pathetic.

[edit on 1-2-2009 by Animal]

reply to post by Animal


Exactly!

Some people think the president of the usa has "dictatorial" powers but in reality nothing could be further from the truth. The president, wether democrat or republican, has to follow the party line as much as possible and at the same time appease the opposition whenever necessary.

And this doesn't even include *special interest* groups that run the show behind the curtains and who more often than not get their way. I really don't understand why people choose to ignore reality. Either they are ignorant or they have an axe to grind.

reply to post by Animal

You can pick apart anyone trying to make them look bad, but it is the amount of TRYING you do that makes your point look good or bad.

You mean like the way you and other liberals picked apart everything that G.W. Bush did?

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

I really don't understand why people choose to ignore reality

I don't know. Why DO YOU continue to ignore reality? The reality is that the first bailout bill was a total failure. The reality is that Obama has both houses of Congress under control of the Dems, so they can do anything they want. The reality is that the ENTIRE "stimulus"(what a joke that name is!) bill of over 600 pages was written ENTIRELY by Democrats, with more pork than a pig farm, and NO input from Republicans. Those are the "realities". All hail Obama, king of the Dems.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

I really don't understand why people choose to ignore reality

I don't know. Why DO YOU continue to ignore reality? The reality is that the first bailout bill was a total failure. The reality is that Obama has both houses of Congress under control of the Dems, so they can do anything they want. The reality is that the ENTIRE "stimulus"(what a joke that name is!) bill of over 600 pages was written ENTIRELY by Democrats, with more pork than a pig farm, and NO input from Republicans. Those are the "realities". All hail Obama, king of the Dems.

Excuse me but wasn't the first bail out bill passed under the bush tenure and although many republicans called the bailouts "socialism" most still went ahead and signed it anyway saying it was necessary OR THE ECONOMY WAS IN DANGER OF TOTAL COLLAPSE! You forget?

Also wasn't it senator McCain who urged bush to bypass congress/senate and to simply use his authority as president to IMPOSE the bailouts under some ill-defined loophole? You forget this also?

Talk about ignoring reality...wow! It seems you don't like the bailouts at all and neither do I but at least the democrats had the fortitude to put some safety measures in that 600 page bill everyone is so negatively obssessed with....