Quote:
Originally Posted by Oreo
Angry--You might want to consider what kind of change is voting for President Bush's energy plan, giving tax breaks & subsidies to large oil, & voting for the bridge to no-where? -Barack Obama & Joe Biden voted for these. John McCain voted against them.
Is this the kind of change you want? You obviously support the Obama ticket.
BTW--Former democrat presidential nominee John Kerry, sought out John McCain to be his V.P pick in 2004. (I would guess that John McCain, according to John Kerry really does not represent a 3rd term for President Bush.)
|
Well for the sake of accuracy, John McCain didn't cast a vote for H.R. 3058, and the bill contained a lot more than the "Bridge to Nowhere."
During the debate of H.R. 6--ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005, I don't see McCain debating about giving subsidies to oil companies; most of the debate centered around global warming. In fact McCain had his own amendment cosponsored by Lieberman that he was pushing for. Here's some interesting debate against the McCain-Lieberman amendment by another republican,
Sen. James Inhofe [R-OK].
Quote:
.... Let's now go to the economic impacts. This is probably one of the things that really should be considered more than anything else at this point because people think if there isn't going to be any great economic impact, why shouldn't we go ahead and do it. I am using here not S. 139, the bill we discussed in October of 2003, because this one is a little bit less than that. It is a little more modest. Enacting the McCain-Lieberman bill would cost, according to Charles River Associates, the U.S. economy $507 billion in 2020, $545 billion in 2025. Implementing Kyoto would cost the U.S. economy $305 billion in 2010, $243 billion in 2020. Under Kyoto, for the average family of four in America, it would cost them $2,700 a year. This bill will only cost them $2,000 a year. So maybe that isn't quite as bad as it would have been otherwise.
The bottom line: It is very expensive. And that is not just Senator Inhofe talking. We are quoting CRA, which is the recognized authority, like the Horton Econometric Survey that talked about how it will affect the rising cost of energy, electricity, gasoline, how much it costs a family of four. It would be very detrimental to our country.
In terms of jobs, enacting the McCain-Lieberman amendment would mean a loss of 800,040 jobs in 2010 and 1.306 million jobs in 2020. This is down a little bit from the full-blown Kyoto, but 1.3 million jobs is significant.
In terms of energy prices, McCain-Lieberman would increase energy prices in 2020 by 28 percent for gasoline, 20 percent for electricity, 47 percent for natural gas, and much more for coal.
Just a few minutes ago, the Senator from Arizona talked about the National Academy of Sciences. What he was referring to is a press statement. It was not a report. Their last report states as follows:
There is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols. A casual linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases and the observed climate change in the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established. The IPC Summary for Policymakers could give an impression that the science of global warming is settled, even though many uncertainties still remain.
So much for the National Academy of Sciences. ...
GovTrack
|
Things are never as black and white as they seem, when put into context.
Can you point me to the part of the bill that you find objectionable?
There are a lot of good things in that bill, and your President (I assume you voted for Bush, forgive me if I'm wrong) signed it into law.