… so that’s what I’m doing. Hope you will do the same.
(Yes Dena, I hear you giggling. 😉 But it’s grammatically correct. LOL)
To meet the Obama administration’s targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, some researchers say, Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon.
To reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the transportation sector 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, the cost of driving must simply increase, according to a forthcoming report by researchers at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
The 14 percent target was set in the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget for fiscal 2010.
In their study, the researchers devised several combinations of steps that United States policymakers might take in trying to address the heat-trapping emissions by the nation’s transportation sector, which consume 70 percent of the oil used in the United States.
Most of their models assumed an economy-wide carbon dioxide tax starting at $30 a ton in 2010 and escalating to $60 a ton in 2030. In some cases researchers also factored in tax credits for electric and hybrid vehicles, taxes on fuel or both.
In the modeling, it turned out that issuing tax credits could backfire, while taxes on fuel proved beneficial.
“Tax credits don’t address how much people use their cars,” said Ross Morrow, one of the report’s authors. “In reverse, they can make people drive more.”
Dr. Morrow, formerly a fellow at the Belfer Center, is a professor of mechanical engineering and economics at Iowa State University
Researchers said that vehicle miles traveled will increase by more than 30 percent between 2010 and 2030 unless policymakers increase fuel taxes.
Okay. So unless the government stop us, we will continue to travel, ship produce and other consumer goods, and even go to work. Unless they stop us by taxing the hell out of us. This also limits our ability to move to another city or state.
How many of us can afford gas this high? How many of us can afford to pay for food or other consumer goods when gas goes this high? How many truckers will be out of work? How many farmers? What about the car companies, like Government Motors, that can’t ship cars to people who can’t afford to drive them anyway? Where will the union workers find jobs?
The idea of this is cataclysmic to our economy. We think 10% unemployment is bad? We’ve seen nothing yet.
Once they control our health care, cap and trade is next. They will be confining us to one place. Easier to control the population that way, isn’t it?
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | The world turns. In Indonesia, the principal of a Muslim boarding school in Tangerang who is accused of impregnating a 15-year-old student says the DNA test will prove that a malevolent genie is the real father.
In New Zealand, a German tourist, Herr Hans Kurt Kubus, has been jailed for attempting to board a plane at Christchurch with 44 live lizards in his underpants.
In Britain, a research team at King’s College, London, has declared that the female “G-spot” does not, in fact, exist.
In France a group of top gynecologists led by Monsieur Sylvain Mimoun has dismissed the findings, and said what do you expect if you ask a group of Englishmen to try to find a woman’s erogenous zone.
But, in America, Barack Obama is talking.
Talking, talking, talking. He talked for 90 minutes at the State of the Union. No matter how many geckos you shoveled down your briefs, you still lost all feeling in your legs. And still he talked. If you had an erogenous zone before he started, by the end it was undetectable even to Frenchmen. But on he talked. As respected poverty advocate Sen. John Edwards commented, “After the first hour, even my malevolent genie was back in the bottle.”
Like any gifted orator, the president knows how to vary the talk with a little light and shade. Sometimes he hectors, sometimes he whines, sometimes he demands. He hectored the Supreme Court. He whined about all the problems he inherited. He demanded Congress put a jobs bill on his desk. Or was it a desk job on his bill? No matter. He does Nixon impressions, too: “We do not quit,” he said.
Boy, you can say that again!
So he did: “We don’t quit. I don’t quit,” he said. Throughout the chamber, Democrats were quitting. “I quit,” says Rep. Marion Berry of Arkansas, declining to run this November. “I quit,” says Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, doing likewise. “I quit,” says Bo Biden of Delaware, son of Vice President Joe Biden, choosing not to succeed to his father’s seat in America’s House of Lords.
But not Barack Obama: “I don’t quit.” So on he went. As my colleague Rich Lowry put it after the Massachusetts vote, the public thinks Obama doesn’t get it, and Obama thinks the public doesn’t get it. And as he’s got the microphone he’s gonna keep talking at you until you do get it.
The ever tinnier, more perfunctory sophomoric uplift at the start and finish can’t conceal the hope-killing, jobs-slaying, soul-sapping message in between, which is perfectly consistent, and has been for two years. As President Obama sees it, whatever the problem — from health care to education, banking to the environment — the solution is more Washington.
Simply as a matter of internal logic, this is somewhat perplexing. After all, when he isn’t blaming George W. Bush, Obama blames “Washington” — a Washington mired in “partisanship” and “pettiness” and “the same tired battles” and “Washington gimmicks” that do nothing but ensure that our “problems have grown worse.” Washington, Obama tells us, is “unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems.”
So let’s have more Washington! In our schools, in our hospitals, in our cars, in everything!
Which raises the question: Does even Obama listen to Obama’s speeches?
The public does — at least to this extent: They understand that, when he’s attacking the tired old Washington games, he’s just playing the tired old Washington games. But, when he’s proposing the tired old Washington solutions, he means it; that’s the real Obama, the only Obama on offer. And everything the president proposes means more debt, which at the level this guy’s spending means, at some point down the road, either higher taxes or total societal collapse.
Functioning societies depend on agreed rules. If you want to open a business, you do it in Singapore or Ireland, because the rules are known to all parties. You don’t go to Sudan or Zimbabwe, where the rules are whatever the state’s whims happen to be that morning.
That’s why Obama is such a job-killer. Why would a small business take on a new employee? The president’s proposing a soak-the-banks tax that could impact your access to credit. The House has passed a cap-and-trade bill that could impose potentially unlimited regulatory costs. The Senate is in favor of “health” “care” “reform” that will allow the IRS to seize your assets if you and your employees’ health arrangements do not meet the approval of the federal government. Some of these things will pass into law, some of them won’t. But all of them send a consistent, cumulative message: that there are no rules, that they’re being made up as they go along — and that some of them might even be retroactive, as happened this week with Oregon’s new corporate tax.
In such an environment, would you hire anyone? Or would you hunker down and sit things out? Obama can bury it in half a ton of leaden telepromptered sludge but the world has got the message: More Washington, more microregulation of every aspect of your life, more multi-trillion-dollar spending, and no agreed rules in a game ever more rigged against you.
Obama and the Democrats have decided, in the current clinch, to “double down.” That hardly does justice to what the president’s doing. In effect, he’s told embattled congressmen and senators to strap on the old suicide-bomber belt and self-detonate for the team this November.
That’s a lot of virgins to pass out, but, with this administration, budget restraints aren’t exactly a problem: Untold pleasures will await every sacrificial incumbent in paradise, or at any rate the coming liberal utopia.
What’s the end game here? President Obama gave it away in his student-loan “reform” proposals: If you choose to go into “public service,” any college-loan debts will be forgiven after 10 years.
Because “public service” is more noble than the selfish, money-grubbing private sector. C’mon, everybody knows that. So we need to encourage more people to go into “public service.”
In the past 60 years, the size of America’s state and local workforce has increased five times faster than the general population. But the president says it’s still not enough: We have to incentivize even further the diversion of our human capital into the government machine.
Like most lifelong politicians, Barack Obama has never created, manufactured or marketed any product other than himself. So, quite reasonably, he sees government dependency as the natural order of things.
And in his college-loan plan he’s explicitly telling you: If you start a business, invent something, provide a service, you’re a schmuck and a loser. In the America he’s building, you’ll be working 24/7 till you drop dead to fund an ever-swollen bureaucracy that takes six weeks off a year and retires at 53 on a pension you could never dream of. Obama’s proposals are bold only insofar as few men would offer such a transparent guarantee of disaster: It’s the audacity of hopelessness.
In Massachusetts, enough voters got the message. And the more speeches this one-note politician inflicts on the nation the louder they’ll hear it.
This has been everywhere at least twice, but still, it cracks me up!
I love this line from the Washington Post because it’s all too true. The hallmark of the marxist progressive movement is all about “causes”.
In my life time it was the Viet Nam war, then civil rights, and women’s rights with the sub-cause abortion rights. These causes (for the exception of abortion) have all but evaporated and so they glommed onto health care reform and the green cause, aka global warming climate change.
Scott Brown has murdered health care, all alone and premeditated. Just ask Chris “leg tingler” Matthews:
But look! Leaked emails, skeptical scientists coming out of the closets and Al Gore hiding in one, have debunked that so-called cause. So down the shitter goes the green cause and with it, cap and trade.
What’s the next cause? We need to be a step ahead of them. I call immigration the next big marxist progressive movement.
What say you? (Oh NO, Shoot me. I’m channeling Bill O’Reilly!)
David Brooks has said that he divides people into “those who talk like us, and those who don’t.” In his column he again categorizes people as those in the “educated class” and the rest of us.
Here’s an example of Brooks’ elitist/education based prejudice from Michelle Malkin’s site; take note of the college pedigree’s:
Jan. 20, 2009, will be a historic day. Barack Obama (Columbia, Harvard Law) will take the oath of office as his wife, Michelle (Princeton, Harvard Law), looks on proudly. Nearby, his foreign policy advisers will stand beaming, including perhaps Hillary Clinton (Wellesley, Yale Law), Jim Steinberg (Harvard, Yale Law) and Susan Rice (Stanford, Oxford D. Phil.).
The domestic policy team will be there, too, including Jason Furman (Harvard, Harvard Ph.D.), Austan Goolsbee (Yale, M.I.T. Ph.D.), Blair Levin (Yale, Yale Law), Peter Orszag (Princeton, London School of Economics Ph.D.) and, of course, the White House Counsel Greg Craig (Harvard, Yale Law)…
In Brooks’ opinion, only those with M.A.’s and higher after their names, should be governing us.
In his most recent column, Brooks compares the Tea Party members (the uneducated class) to the Obama educated class. And apparently the Tea Partiers are not smart enough – yet – to realize that we need those guys to lead us. To Brooks, it’s almost as though, those who do not support or belong to the educated class are just being contrarians for the sake of being contrary:
The educated class believes in global warming, so public skepticism about global warming is on the rise. The educated class supports abortion rights, so public opinion is shifting against them. The educated class supports gun control, so opposition to gun control is mounting.
The story is the same in foreign affairs. The educated class is internationalist, so isolationist sentiment is now at an all-time high, according to a Pew Research Center survey. The educated class believes in multilateral action, so the number of Americans who believe we should “go our own way” has risen sharply.
I guess it’s not possible in the educated brain of Mr. Brooks that maybe “the educated class” is wrong on all these issues! I guess he doesn’t know that all those issues that the “educated class” supports are UNCONSTITUTIONAL! “The rest of us” (the uneducated class) seem to know and understand more about that document than his ilk does.
Instead of contrasting the smart guys and “the rest of us”, Barone compares those who follow style (Obamatrons) and “the rest of us” who follow substance:
…it sounds like Brooks was indulging the conceit of so many liberals that they are, well, simply smarter than conservatives.
But when you look back over the surges of enthusiasm in the politics of the last two years, you see something like this: The Obama enthusiasts who dominated so much of the 2008 campaign cycle were motivated by style. The tea party protesters who dominated so much of 2009 were motivated by substance.
(Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obama_s-rapturous-style-versus-tea-party-substance-8756474-81280502.html#ixzz0cZzuqeSJ)
If you’re a devotee of style, you’re buying every issue of Vanity Fair or People rag/mags to see Mrs. TheOne’s new spring fashion wardrobe or her new way cool hairdo, or gawking at TheOne’s serious six-pack and pecks.
If you’re a follower of coolness, you’re a twenty-something watching mindless Jersey Shores reality tv on “Rock the Vote” network.
If your motivation is substance, you’re reading the Constitution, the health care and crap and tax bills and getting smart enough to debate candidates, congressmen and senators at town hall meetings.
Tell me again Mr. Brooks, who is the educated class in this country?