• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Obama math?

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Obama in September 2008;
The problem is not technical, uh, and the problem is not mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington. The problem is, uh, can you get the American people to say, “This is really important,” and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. Uh, and climate change is a great example.

You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.


Obama in June, 2009;
AP: Obama says the Energy Tax Bill (aka as Cap and Tax) “would cost the average American about the price of a postage stamp per day.”

Can any of you Obamacans explain to me how electricity rates will skyrocket but only cost us the price of a postage stamp a day? I don't understand liberal math.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
ffff, OT, you've both posted on other threads but haven't graced this one yet. I was hoping you would offer an explaination. Your boy appears to be talking out of both sides of his mouth again...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
ffff, OT, you've both posted on other threads but haven't graced this one yet. I was hoping you would offer an explaination. Your boy appears to be talking out of both sides of his mouth again...

I've heard it- Repubs were repeating it over and over in their debate fearmongering the other day...It was a misspeak in one speach or missprint in one quoted article he gave in one town (if I remember right they were saying San Francisco)....It definitely hasn't been his policy-as posted from day one- or the direction he and congress are heading...

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency both issued estimates of how the climate bill would affect energy costs.

The CBO estimated the cost at $175 a year for the average household. The EPA forecasts $80 to $110 a year.

Also EPA says that coal usage and coal jobs will greatly EXPAND in the next 10 years- and then even later as more "clean coal" technology is used in the production of electricity that will replace some of the oil based energy now used- that keeps us captive to the Chavez's and Arab Princes of the world...

June 22, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of heat-trapping gases that cause global warming, but President Obama's plan to fight climate change would result in the nation burning more coal a decade from now than it does today.

The administration's plan, the centerpiece of a 700-page legislative package, proposes strict limits on emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide.

But to attract vital support from congressional Democrats representing heavily coal-dependent areas, authors of the legislation, including Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills), have made a series of concessions that substantially soften its effect on coal -- at least over the next decade or so.

As a result, the Environmental Protection Agency projects that even if the emissions limits go into effect, the U.S. would use more carbon-dioxide-heavy coal in 2020 than it did in 2005.

That's because the bill gives utilities a financial incentive to keep burning coal by joining the cap-and-trade system -- a kind of marketplace where polluters could reduce their emissions on paper by buying pollution reductions created by others. These so-called offsets, for example, could be created and sold by farmers who planted trees, which filter carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.


Environmental groups also say the bill could set off a boom in the construction of new coal plants because of provisions that would restrict legal efforts to block such projects.

Leading Democrats -- and some major conservation groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council -- say the moves have helped attract coal-district Democrats to support the bill without undermining the plan's environmental goals.

"We've ensured a role for coal" in the nation's energy future, said Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), one of the leading coal champions in the House.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Ohhhhhhh, a MISPEAK..... :roll: I seeeeeee :roll:

How do you know when he has "mispoken", when he has lied, and when his is just spreading BS? Help me out here, because it sure seemed to me that he believed what he was saying when he gave that interview. He sure hasn't made any statement to say that he was incorrect then. Maybe he was truthful then and "mispoke" when he said it would only cost the equivalent of a postage stamp? Exactly how do you know which statement was the "truth," and which was the "mispeak"?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Ohhhhhhh, a MISPEAK..... :roll: I seeeeeee :roll:

How do you know when he has "mispoken", when he has lied, and when his is just spreading BS? Help me out here, because it sure seemed to me that he believed what he was saying when he gave that interview. He sure hasn't made any statement to say that he was incorrect then. Maybe he was truthful then and "mispoke" when he said it would only cost the equivalent of a postage stamp? Exactly how do you know which statement was the "truth," and which was the "mispeak"?

Sorry if I look further than one speach- or one quote in a paper that you don't know if it was printed right or not....Pence is on tv right now repeating that quote and says it was an e-mail sent to a SF paper- but I noticed he's not saying what their own CBO said... :roll:
I've dug thru much of the energy plans from back in campaign days- because I'm one that believes we have to get off our dependence on oil- and especially foreign oil controlled by people that hate us...

My personal opinion is that the Ag organizations should instead of jumping on the bandwagon of the NO NO NO bunch-- jump into the middle and work to get the best we can for Ag out of the Cap and Trade....
I think after last years rape and pillage by the Bush/Cheney oil buddies have people demanding a change- and a long term energy plan..

Farmers also will find new ways to make money in a carbon economy. Carbon consultants like the International Carbon Bank & Exchange in Florida see huge potential in agriculture for managing carbon emissions. Farmers that till their soil differently or apply new environmental techniques can get money by cooperating with a polluter as a carbon "offset."

Owners of large tracts of forest land also will get a lot of interest from the business community. Like farmers, environmental experts see them as a huge player in the carbon economy because of their natural ability to absorb carbon.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency both issued estimates of how the climate bill would affect energy costs.

The CBO estimated the cost at $175 a year for the average household. The EPA forecasts $80 to $110 a year.



June 22, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of heat-trapping gases that cause global warming, but President Obama's plan to fight climate change would result in the nation burning more coal a decade from now than it does today.

The administration's plan, the centerpiece of a 700-page legislative package, proposes strict limits on emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide.

But to attract vital support from congressional Democrats representing heavily coal-dependent areas, authors of the legislation, including Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills), have made a series of concessions that substantially soften its effect on coal -- at least over the next decade or so.

As a result, the Environmental Protection Agency projects that even if the emissions limits go into effect, the U.S. would use more carbon-dioxide-heavy coal in 2020 than it did in 2005.

That's because the bill gives utilities a financial incentive to keep burning coal by joining the cap-and-trade system -- a kind of marketplace where polluters could reduce their emissions on paper by buying pollution reductions created by others. These so-called offsets, for example, could be created and sold by farmers who planted trees, which filter carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.


Environmental groups also say the bill could set off a boom in the construction of new coal plants because of provisions that would restrict legal efforts to block such projects.

Leading Democrats -- and some major conservation groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council -- say the moves have helped attract coal-district Democrats to support the bill without undermining the plan's environmental goals.

"We've ensured a role for coal" in the nation's energy future, said Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), one of the leading coal champions in the House.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Sorry if I look further than one speach- or one quote in a paper that you don't know if it was printed right or not....Pence is on tv right now repeating that quote and says it was an e-mail sent to a SF paper....

It was in a recorded interview, I HEARD THE DAMN THING MYSELF! I SAW THE LYING BTARDS LIPS MOVING!!!!!

You should be apologizing for being such a butt sucker to this man that you make such lame excuses like "he mispoke" or "one quote in a paper that you don't know if it was printed right or not".

You should apologize for selling our your country to become an Obamican! The man says one thing and then just a few months later completely contradicts what he said before and you've sold your soul to the extent that you can't admit the obvious. That's pathetic, man.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Well Sandy- you being a one horse man I can see where you would put the importance to it you seem to do-- but sorry it doesn't fit the whole pattern I'm seeing or the facts coming out from the NONPARTISAN groups....

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency both issued estimates of how the climate bill would affect energy costs.

The CBO estimated the cost at $175 a year for the average household. The EPA forecasts $80 to $110 a year.

So you believe that the Oil Companies are spending money lobbying and putting out false info right now at a rate never seen before in Congress (10 to 1 in comparison to the enviro groups) just because they are good citizens concerned for the American citizens welfare..... :???:

How much you pay for a Bridge? :wink:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
Ohhhhhhh, a MISPEAK..... :roll: I seeeeeee :roll:

How do you know when he has "mispoken", when he has lied, and when his is just spreading BS? Help me out here, because it sure seemed to me that he believed what he was saying when he gave that interview. He sure hasn't made any statement to say that he was incorrect then. Maybe he was truthful then and "mispoke" when he said it would only cost the equivalent of a postage stamp? Exactly how do you know which statement was the "truth," and which was the "mispeak"?

Sorry if I look further than one speach- or one quote in a paper that you don't know if it was printed right or not....Pence is on tv right now repeating that quote and says it was an e-mail sent to a SF paper- but I noticed he's not saying what their own CBO said... :roll:
I've dug thru much of the energy plans from back in campaign days- because I'm one that believes we have to get off our dependence on oil- and especially foreign oil controlled by people that hate us...

My personal opinion is that the Ag organizations should instead of jumping on the bandwagon of the NO NO NO bunch-- jump into the middle and work to get the best we can for Ag out of the Cap and Trade....
I think after last years rape and pillage by the Bush/Cheney oil buddies have people demanding a change- and a long term energy plan..

Farmers also will find new ways to make money in a carbon economy. Carbon consultants like the International Carbon Bank & Exchange in Florida see huge potential in agriculture for managing carbon emissions. Farmers that till their soil differently or apply new environmental techniques can get money by cooperating with a polluter as a carbon "offset."

Owners of large tracts of forest land also will get a lot of interest from the business community. Like farmers, environmental experts see them as a huge player in the carbon economy because of their natural ability to absorb carbon.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency both issued estimates of how the climate bill would affect energy costs.

The CBO estimated the cost at $175 a year for the average household. The EPA forecasts $80 to $110 a year.


so what your saying is it is okey to have an additional tax on the poor so you can have another government subsidy?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
If you'll notice, the two quotes I brought were by Obama and nobody else. I'm not talking about what the CBO, oil companies, or any other groups are saying - I'm talking about what just Pinocciobama is saying. The SOB is changing is tune. He's saying two entirely different things, and you're making up weak excuses like "he mispoke"?

The guy seems to have a heck of a time "mispeaking". I'd compile a list of all of his "mispokes", but it wouldn't do any good. You've already sold your soul to the man.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
If you'll notice, the two quotes I brought were by Obama and nobody else. I'm not talking about what the CBO, oil companies, or any other groups are saying - I'm talking about what just Pinocciobama is saying. The SOB is changing is tune. He's saying two entirely different things, and you're making up weak excuses like "he mispoke"?

The guy seems to have a heck of a time "mispeaking". I'd compile a list of all of his "mispokes", but it wouldn't do any good. You've already sold your soul to the man.

Well after 12 years of Repub control-6 of which were total control- and having lived thru their energy policy that put a huge financial strain on Americans while filling the cartels and dictators pockets and sending Billions a year overseas and forced us into an oil war - their health care policy that allows the insurance companies and health industry to rape and pillage the consumers while leaving people to die with no coverage--their economic policy of nonregulation/oversight that stuffed wallstreet CEO's pockets while the country went bankrupt- etc. etc.-- I haven't sold my soul-- but I damn sure put a lot more faith in the Dems anymore...
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
If you'll notice, the two quotes I brought were by Obama and nobody else. I'm not talking about what the CBO, oil companies, or any other groups are saying - I'm talking about what just Pinocciobama is saying. The SOB is changing is tune. He's saying two entirely different things, and you're making up weak excuses like "he mispoke"?

The guy seems to have a heck of a time "mispeaking". I'd compile a list of all of his "mispokes", but it wouldn't do any good. You've already sold your soul to the man.

Well after 12 years of Repub control-6 of which were total control- and having lived thru their energy policy that put a huge financial strain on Americans while filling the cartels and dictators pockets and sending Billions a year overseas and forced us into an oil war - their health care policy that allows the insurance companies and health industry to rape and pillage the consumers while leaving people to die with no coverage--their economic policy of nonregulation/oversight that stuffed wallstreet CEO's pockets while the country went bankrupt- etc. etc.-- I haven't sold my soul-- but I damn sure put a lot more faith in the Dems anymore...

When you're saying things like "he mispoke", you've sold your soul. When you have no rational explaination on why he spends thousands and thousands to keep his cert hidden, but chide those that point out the obvious, you've sold your soul. When you raise all kinds of hell about Bush tromping on the Constitution, but make excuses when Obama does the same, I'd say that you've sold your soul.

My initial question is still on the floor; How can electricity rates skyrocket but will only cost us the price of a postage stamp a day?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
If you'll notice, the two quotes I brought were by Obama and nobody else. I'm not talking about what the CBO, oil companies, or any other groups are saying - I'm talking about what just Pinocciobama is saying. The SOB is changing is tune. He's saying two entirely different things, and you're making up weak excuses like "he mispoke"?

The guy seems to have a heck of a time "mispeaking". I'd compile a list of all of his "mispokes", but it wouldn't do any good. You've already sold your soul to the man.

Well after 12 years of Repub control-6 of which were total control- and having lived thru their energy policy that put a huge financial strain on Americans while filling the cartels and dictators pockets and sending Billions a year overseas and forced us into an oil war - their health care policy that allows the insurance companies and health industry to rape and pillage the consumers while leaving people to die with no coverage--their economic policy of nonregulation/oversight that stuffed wallstreet CEO's pockets while the country went bankrupt- etc. etc.-- I haven't sold my soul-- but I damn sure put a lot more faith in the Dems anymore...

When you're saying things like "he mispoke", you've sold your soul. When you have no rational explaination on why he spends thousands and thousands to keep his cert hidden, but chide those that point out the obvious, you've sold your soul. When you raise all kinds of hell about Bush tromping on the Constitution, but make excuses when Obama does the same, I'd say that you've sold your soul.

My initial question is still on the floor; How can electricity rates skyrocket but will only cost us the price of a postage stamp a day?

Yep- like I said- a one horse cowboy.... :roll:

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency both issued estimates of how the climate bill would affect energy costs.

The CBO estimated the cost at $175 a year for the average household. The EPA forecasts $80 to $110 a year.

$175 divided by 365 days = .48 cents a day.....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
"Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would NOT necessarily skyrocket"

How about that way? Thats what all his printed material and plans/policy say....

And the current congressional plan is not going to skyrocket anything- unless you can't afford 49 cents a day....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
"The chief executive of Duke Energy Corp., one of the nation's biggest power companies and a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, said Friday that a proposal by President Obama to place a price on carbon emissions would drive up electricity rates in some areas of the U.S. by 40% and warned that it could also lead to "a redistribution of wealth" from Midwestern industrial states to coastal states."

The man that knows power says 40% and Pinnociobama's latest statement is the cost of a postage stamp. Maybe the explaination is that Zero doesn't know how much a postage stamp costs?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
"Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would NOT necessarily skyrocket"

How about that way?

That's not what he said, is it? The "mispoke" card has already been played, so the only thing left is to change the quote?

Well I guess he is wrong- altho the current House plan is not exactly what Obama's plan said- with many more concessions and lays it out over a longer period (40-50 years)- their numbers can't be called "skyrocketting"....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
"Well I guess he is wrong-" A tiny ray of hope!

So which is he wrong on? Common sense says his second statement...

The CBO says on his first....
 
Top