With a veto of the Senate legislation to approve the Keystone XL pipeline looming, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is getting desperate to scoop up any extra Democratic votes he can in hopes of the chance of an override.
Sen. McConnell (R-KY), in a last-ditch effort to gain bipartisan support for the proposed pipeline, is proposing an open amendment process in which all amendments will receive a debate. McConnell stated in a press conference on Tuesday,
We’re wide open. We’re not trying to block anybody’s amendments.
This was just the opening Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was waiting for. Sanders has devised the brilliant plan of forcing Congress to discuss the reality of man-made climate change with his “Sense of Congress” resolution. The resolution would confirm that climate change is a reality, and is caused by human activity such as the combustion of fossil-fuels. Sanders stated that the resolution would affirm that Congress “is in agreement with the opinion of virtually the entire worldwide scientific community, and climate change has already caused devastating problems in the United States and around the world.”
The resolution is largely superfluous in terms of actually combating the results of man-made climate change—yet what it does is just as important. It will force several Senators outside of their comfort zones. This resolution will prohibit Republican Senators from simply dodging the issue like many so “masterfully” did during midterm-elections.
According to a recent study published by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, a majority—68% to be precise— of moderate Republicans believe that man-made climate change is a reality. Contrast this to the fact that 70% of Republican Senators have stated on record that man is not responsible for climate change, and the brilliance of Sanders’ plan comes into full focus.
These revelations could indeed spell trouble for Republican Senators such as Mark Kirk (R-IL), who has recently done a fair amount of backtracking on the climate-change issue. How Sen. Kirk handles this new debate could majorly impact his re-election chances in 2016.
The real genius of Sen. Sanders’ plan is to expose these climate-change deniers by letting them condemn themselves. All he has to do is set the plan in motion, and they will be their own undoing.
H/T New Republic| Image: Ifyouonlynews
Bernie Sanders self-identifies as a socialist. He is an elitist who believes that controlling energy is a function of an all-encompassing government and that the “dirty peasants” should suffer and die in silence “for their own good”. Anyone who thinks that way is an enemy of the citizenry.
I know you and people like you hate socialist programs like public schools and roads, so I can see how energy regulation makes you mad.
Where did Bernie state we should die for our own good?
Elitist is nearly the exact opposite of what Bernie Sanders is. Given your username and your feelings about Senator Sanders, I am assuming you lean to the right. If you do lean to the right, one might also assume that you are a “founding fathers groupie”. If you are looking to find elitist politicians in American history…start with the founding fathers - there were a few in that bunch.
The parent poster was correct. Only an arrogant narcissistic (elitist) thinks that a small group of ruling elite should control the resources and productive capacity of an entire population.
You mean like the system we have now, where a tiny few elitist oil oligarchs control it all?
And *how* is that possible tough guy? Please tell us. *HOW* do you concentrate power to that degree without a government apparatus using force in order to coerce that power structure into being?
Simple. Lax regulatory oversight, massive subsidies, and special favors.
So what is the point you’re trying to make? Complaining about a centralization of power by (i am assuming) defending a centralization of power? That really does not make much sense.
The point is that we need far more regulatory oversight, and quite possibly even a nationalization of the oil industry altogether. Government rule in a democratic society is far from a “centralization of power,” when government of the people, by the people, for the people is allowed.
Exactly. You’re contradicting yourself despite the fact that you probably don’t even know it. The complaints you cited earlier “tiny few elitist oil oligarchs control it all” is ONLY possible with government intervention. And your solution to the problem is MORE government intervention?!? Really?
Government rule - period - is a centralization of power. A “democratic society” simply makes it even worse. Simply put you have a problem with two individuals making a mutually beneficial arrangement between themselves. You despise voluntary exchange and (because you’re a sociopath) think that YOU should get to control exchange between individuals.
You badly need to rethink your position.
Jesus. The ignorant runs deep in this one.
Ironic, that statement coming from you. You obviously have not thought through your position at all because you don’t even realize that you are contradicting yourself. I repeat; you are simultaneously complaining about government intervention in the market and calling for it to be fixed by more government intervention in the market.
Nope, it is returning that “government intervention” back to the people and focusing on bettering the American way of life instead of sucking the money out of the treasury . . . private control of public money? Seems the Federal Reserve is treasonous . . .
Your comment makes little sense. Why don’t you rewrite it so I can understand it and then respond to the content of it.
Since you suffer from contextual impairment, OK. You suggest that “government intervention”, in assisting oil companies to game the system by buying Congressmen is the same as Congress using the will of the People to control common resources. This is a fallacy. Oil barons get subsidies, and tax breaks to exploit the resources (corporate welfare), is not the same as using government rules and regulations for the preservation and protection of said resources. One is for the few, the other is for the many, you know, the way Democracy is suppose to work. One use of government is concentration of control into the hands of the few, the other protection of the many. Get it? The Federal Reserve is the same thing, private business controlling public money. . . hope that clears up your problem . . .
I don’t suffer from a thing, you’re just an idiot. Power centers, which you are advocating for, are ALWAYS corrupted. You cannot point to a single power center ever created by the .gov that was not corrupted.
It blows my mind that you can see this happening at EVERY turn throughout history, complain about it, then advocate for more of the same. You are just unbelievably stupid. You are the equivalent of the fool who sees a fire, throws some gasoline on it, sees the fire getting worse, complains about the worsening fire, then decides to throw more gasoline on the fire.
Equating “tax breaks” to “corporate welfare” and “subsidies” also demonstrates your extraordinary levels of ignorance. This country is not a democracy, was never intended to be a democracy (a truly horrible form of government), and never will be a democracy.
Look kid I am going to tell you something that you should have been told long ago. You are not exceptional. You are not particularly bright, and you simply lack the mental acumen to outsmart your intellectual superiors. Those superiors will ALWAYS take the power centers you are stupidly advocating for and use them for personal profit. You will be powerless to stop this, and likely too stupid to even realize it is happening. You really would be better off if you kept your mouth shut. When you open it you confirm to everyone reading these comments just how dim you really are.
“Anyone who thinks that way is an enemy of the citizenry.”
Really? I’m guessing you’re a huge “open carry” advocate as well. Well sir, y’all can just tuck the tin-foil back under your propeller beanie there Jethro. Ain’t nobody from the gub’met gonna hurt ya!
Exactly when was he required to surrender his guns? About the time the UN rolled into town? Reagan was the toughest gun control advocate, getting shot does that to you . . .
Heartland Patriot You obviously do not understand the term socialist……………you are no patriot, you are just stupid.
Since you’re using quotation marks I assume you’re quoting him. Please cite your sources, otherwise you’re a liar.
You have no idea what a socialist is. You aren’t a patriot. You are a poorly educated, white trash moron.
Natural resources belong to the entire nation, not just oil oligarch elitists who believe that controlling energy (as well as public foreign policy, uses of military, etc.) Is a function of an all-encompassing oil oligarchy, and that all the “dirty peasants” should suffer and die in silence “for their own good.”
What the hell misled you into believing that we’re supposed to let a few oil billionaires determine our fate and every move, simply because we’ve foolishly allowed them access to OUR oil?
I imagine the scared little Repubs in the back room already have their heads together plotting on how to divert or avoid Bernie’s resolution. Bernie, like Elizabeth Warren, plays a much needed role in congress by forcing the opposition to reveal themselves for what they really stand for. Call him what you will, he represents the American way which puts him heads above much of the senate and almost all of the House.
Typical Connie, doesn’t even read his own “facts”. I found this quote on the site:
The data clearly indicates global warming is happening and is human caused. At this time in the natural cycle Earth should be slightly cooling on trend, leading into what would have been the next ice age. Instead Earth is warming. There is no valid evidence that can prove otherwise.
There has not been warming since the late 90’s, even according to former IPCC puppet Phil Jones. We’ve had record-breaking cold Winters world-wide. The Polar Bears are doing fine. The coldest temp ever recorded was recorded in Antarctica just a couple of years back. Climate model predictions of gloom and doom do not match real-world temps - not even close.
The sky is not falling.
There has not been any warming since 1998 according to former IPCC ho bag Phil Jones. We’ve had record-breaking cold Winters worldwide over the last several years. The Polar Bears are doing just fine. The coldest temp ever recorded was recorded in Antarctica just a couple of years back. Climate model predictions of gloom and doom do not match real world temps - not even close.
The sky is not falling.
What part of “isn’t statistically significant” are you having trouble with? Agian, you are confusing weather and outlyers
There is so much wrong with your nonsense that I lack time to address it all. Reducing a tax liability is hardly a form of “welfare”, particularly when the party reducing his/her/its tax liability pays dramatically less in taxes than you do.
The United States was not based upon the model of the Iroquois Nation, not even close. This fallacy mostly arrives from a Ben Franklin letter referencing how pathetic it would be if the Iroquois could form a Union and not the Colonies - this was to support his Albany Plan. There is zero evidence that Franklin based the Albany Plan on the Iroquois nation, and in fact its more likely the Iroquois had nothing whatsoever to do with his proposal, particularly since he though them to be “ignorant savages”. You can read Nancy Dieter Egloff’s scholarship if you want to learn more on the topic. The Iroquois nation did not even particularly resemble the United States. Learn the topic before you start trying to discuss it.
How on earth you think that “democracy” leads to “equality” is astounding. Democracy by definition will lead to the exact opposite.
You cite a primitive tribal culture as evidence that democracy does not lead to power centers - with no proof, and which more than likely *did* suffer from power centers - they were just too primitive to record such issues before being exterminated.
Let’s try this on for size. If you want true “equality” then EVERY ONE should pay the exact same AMOUNT in taxes. YOU pay $10. I pay $10. We ALL pay $10. At that point you can do away with every convoluted and complicated piece of nonsense that has arisen. It will also instantly kill nearly every power center because its far less fun to vote for welfare for others when you have to bear an equal portion of the cost.
Please write back and explain how the ULTIMATE form of “equality” conferred by the government - the flat per capita tax is something you disagree with.
Well, I agree that we are not going to be able to debate a subject that scholars are still in some disagreement with, but the Iroquois Nation did lend some aspects to the formation of the United States . . .
“American Studies Professor Donald Grinde, among others, argue that American colonists, in Johansen’s words, “drew freely on the image of the American Indian as an exemplar of the spirit of liberty they so cherished.” These scholars argue that the framers of American governments understood and admired Native American government structures, and they borrowed certain indigenous concepts for their own governments.”
So we can agree that there is still unsettled issues with that scholarship. But the fact remains that the Iroquois Nation is the longest running participatory Democracy in existence, even by Egloff’s research.
If you go by your delusional equality of paying the same $10 tax that would be fine if everyone made the same income. Flat tax burdens the less income enhanced with a larger share of taxes. If you want to follow a more Libertarian model, then the corporate entities should pay more directly for the use of the nations resources, infrastructure, and legal systems since they derive more profit from their existence. Roads, rails and airports to transport materials, goods and workers, most of Superior court cases involve contract and corporate law cases, legal enforcement of protection of goods and ideas, the ecological effects of energy extraction, transport and refining. As it is, these monetary burdens are heaped on the general population to pay for. The issue is that Capitalism is not, by nature, equitable with Democracy, but the two have gotten so entangled that it is difficult to separate them. China LOVES capitalism, but hates Democracy. American industrialists would love to have America in that model and are doing all they can to achieve it. The imbalance of wealth and it’s influence in our Republic does create inequality in having your voice heard. Money doesn’t talk, it screams.
So we are down to debating if equality is the goal of democracy. Again, we are at a point of debate and this is probably not the forum to resolve that idea. It is true that the Founders put in the Bill of Rights to protect from “tyranny of the majority” but these involve more issues of a social nature. They put in rules to regulate Commerce and Trade mostly to finance the government but those “rules” have been subjugated to the “free market”, which is an illusion.
I gather from your “flat tax” nonsense that you have Libertarian leanings. I remind you that there has never been a Libertarian government in the history of the world. Closest it has come is political anarchy, (move to Somalia) which has some merits BUT only if tempered with participatory Democracy. Differences in wealth create differences in “rights”. Even Libertarians seek a government just enough to protect property. The ultimate in childish selfishness. Libertarian societies can work in the frame of small tribal units, like Indian tribes, but fall apart at larger scales, hence the Iroquois Nations approach to unity.
We may never achieve financial equality, but the worship of wealth, as a mental disease, could be treated. Until then, leveling the economic responsibilities through a progressive tax is the best solution we have.
A true libertarian tax scheme would not resemble a per capita tax at all. Every service offered would have a fee associated with it, and if you would like to have said service provided you would pay the fee for it. This is, of course, a substantially superior system to a flat per capita tax, but a per capita tax is still pretty good, and a big step in the right direction.
Why on earth should someone’s income reflect how much they pay in taxes? You do realize that simply because you have been told that and brainwashed your entire life, there is zero philosophical justification for such an approach. You should be paying taxes commensurate with services you consume. *Most* people consume approximately the same amount of services, certainly the vast majority consume no more than a low multiple of one another. There are no log unit differences in the consumption of services for nearly every individual in this country. Why then do individual tax bills vary by said log units then? Moreover if you DO in fact believe that certain people should be paying more - a larger share of the pie, and since taxes cannot be avoided lest men with guns come knocking down your door and locking you in a cage or murdering you for non-compliance, then *certainly* VOTING must be directly tied to that share of the pie.
Or are you maintaining that the taxation system is your own little sociopathic pet project whereby you are free to steal from the successful at the point of a gun to use their wealth as you - the failure unable to attain such wealth - see fit?
I repeat, once a voice in a vote is equal to the financial burden one must bear the incentive for the massive, wasteful, and insidious redistribution schemes (and enormous inefficiencies) goes away.