Obama Adopts Bush-Era Mining Rule (to dump waste on federal land)

[EFerrari]

Obama Adopts Bush-Era Mining Rule

Environmentalists are criticizing the Obama administration for supporting a Bush-era policy that allows private mining companies to dump toxic waste on federal land without compensating the government for any environmental damage. Democratic Congressman Raúl Grijalva of Arizona criticized the administration’s decision. Grijalva said, " makes no sense from a taxpayer standpoint, an economic standpoint or an ecological standpoint. The only people to benefit are the country’s largest mining companies.”

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/5/headlines#12


Environmentalists blast Obama mining rule reversal

By JUDITH KOHLER
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

DENVER -- The same week President Barack Obama riled environmentalists with plans for offshore oil drilling, he faces criticism for signaling he will support a Bush-era policy criticized as giving mining companies unlimited access to public lands to dump toxic waste.

The administration asked a federal judge Tuesday to dismiss a challenge by environmental and community groups to a rule that lifted a restriction on how much public land companies can use. The groups are also challenging a 2008 rule that says companies aren't required to pay the going rate to use the land.

Environmentalists said the administration's decision conflicts with its pledge to overhaul the nearly 140-year-old law regulating the mining of gold, silver and other hard-rock minerals on public land.

"The Obama administration can't have it both ways," said Jane Danowitz of the Pew Environment Group in Washington. "Either it stands by its earlier commitment to bringing mining law into the 21st Century, or it continues to allow the industry to dump unlimited toxic waste on public land at the expense of taxpayers and the environment."

http://www.seattlepi.com/business/1310ap_us_mining_reform.html

[FiveGoodMen]

1. One day soon...

Obama will reach for a hidden clasp, loosen and remove his mask, and there, standing before us all, will be George W Bush.

[ClarkUSA]

4. Yes, "George W Bush" would have definitely pushed through landmark HCR and the CARD act.

:sarcasm:

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

13. Yeah, the GOP loved HCR & are totally supporting Obama's finance reform & climate change bills too!

:sarcasm:

[Better Believe It]

86. You mean the "Health Insurance Industry and Big Pharma Protection Act"?

No, Democrats would have blocked it if Bush had proposed it during his administration.

Well, they probably would have stopped it.

Well, maybe not.

[ClarkUSA]

2. Considering Obama severely restricted mountaintop mining and raised mileage standards last week...

... this can be construed as a decision to mitigate the midterm election outcome, especially in western states like Nevada, where Harry Reid is in trouble from teabaggers labelling him their #1 target. I predict he will revisit this decision next year.

[EFerrari]

6. The restrictions only apply to new operations.

And, I hope you're right.

[MadHound]

7. Lovely, sacrificing the environment for political gain

Ya know, sometimes we simply need to do the right thing and damn the political fallout. Without our environment declining at an exponential rate, this would be one of those times.

[truedelphi]

12. You are expresing my point of view. Plus no matter how many times

Democratic Leaders do what they think will help to offset some voting loss among the Republican vote, it doesn't usually work out that way.

So one is left wondering - is this really being done to help the Dems in the fall elections? Or is that just the cover story?

[ClarkUSA]

14. Without political gain, the environment will be sacrificed by a GOP majority. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

15. We should sacrifice the environment so we don't have to sacrifice the environment? nt

[ClarkUSA]

17. We keep our powder dry until the midterm election, then move on this issue afterwards. nt

[ZombieHorde]

27. Is that satire? nt

[glitch]

31. forum theater

not as effective as street theater but much less effort to produce.

[ClarkUSA]

33. No, it's smart long-term strategy if you want minimize the odds of a GOP majority. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

34. Why do you think not dumping toxic waste on federal land would cost the Dems an election? nt

[ClarkUSA]

36. I'll answer you tomorrow. It's late. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

40. Any mining issue controversy is going to be a momentum killer during a tough midterm election.

Mining rights, along with hunting, water and grazing rights, hit primal libertarian chords in Western states. In western states like Nevada, where Harry Reid is in trouble from teabaggers labelling him their #1 target, stirring up a hornet's nest could be the last nail in his political coffin. Considering Obama severely restricted mountaintop mining and raised mileage standards as well as implementing the first greenhouse gas limits in our nation's history just last week, this can be construed as a decision to mitigate the midterm election outcome.

[ZombieHorde]

48. Anti-mining stances do well in Montana.

Nevada is a Red State and Harry Reid is already in trouble. I don't think cost/benefit of President Obama's stance is on our side.

[ClarkUSA]

53. Not sure about that but in any case, Harry Reid is not from Montana.

Nevada is not a red state, according to most political analysts. It is, if anything, purple. It is true that Reid is in trouble, so why stir the pot?

<<I don't think cost/benefit of President Obama's stance is on our side.>>

Perhaps, perhaps not. It all depends on what happens in November. Eight months is a lifetime in politics. In September, many of the immediate benefits of HCR will kick in. Since Nevada has been hurt badly by the recession, I'd wager that there are going to be many folks who are going to be pleasantly surprised as they learn more about what they stand to gain. Also, the middle-class tax cuts will be in the mail over the summer, which gives Reid something else to campaign on, since many folks haven't got a clue about that, either.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MadHound]

25. Umm, gee, Dems have the majority now, what are they doing?

Oh, yeah, adapting GOP mining rules. I mean really now, the reason that we elect Dems into office is to do things like protect the environment, not to act like the GOP in order to defeat the GOP.

Doing things for the good of the country, not for political gains, that's why these so called leader are elected.

[ClarkUSA]

35. Funny that you ask...

1. Ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut spending
2. Ordered a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful spending and practices
3. Instituted enforcement for equal pay for women
4. Beginning the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq
5. Families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB
6. Ended media blackout on war casualties; reporting full information
7. Ended media blackout on covering the return of fallen soldiers to Dover AFB; the media is now permitted to do so pending adherence to respectful rules and approval of fallen soldier's family
8. The White House and federal government are respecting the Freedom of Information Act
9. Instructed all federal agencies to promote openness and transparency as much as possible
10. Limits on lobbyist's access to the White House
11. Limits on White House aides working for lobbyists after their tenure in the administration
12. Ended the previous stop-loss policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan longer than their enlistment date
13. Phasing out the expensive F-22 war plane and other outdated weapons systems, which weren't even used or needed in Iraq/Afghanistan
14. Removed restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research
15. Federal support for stem-cell and new biomedical research
16. New federal funding for science and research labs
17. States are permitted to enact federal fuel efficiency standards above federal standards
18.. Increased infrastructure spending (roads, bridges, power plants) after years of neglect
19. Funds for high-speed, broadband Internet access to K-12 schools
20. New funds for school construction
21. The prison at Guantanamo Bay is being phased out
22. US Auto industry rescue plan
23. Housing rescue plan
24. $789 billion economic stimulus plan
25. The public can meet with federal housing insurers to refinance (the new plan can be completed in one day) a mortgage if they are having trouble paying
26. US financial and banking rescue plan
27. The secret detention facilities in Eastern Europe and elsewhere are being closed
28. Ended the previous policy; the US now has a no torture policy and is in compliance with the Geneva Convention standards
29. Better body armor is now being provided to our troops
30. The missile defense program is being cut by $1.4 billion in 2010
31. Restarted the nuclear nonproliferation talks and building back up the nuclear inspection infrastructure/protocols
32. Reengaged in the treaties/agreements to protect the Antarctic
33. Reengaged in the agreements/talks on global warming and greenhouse gas emissions
34. Visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any president in his first six months in office
35. Successful release of US captain held by Somali pirates; authorized the SEALS to do their job
36. US Navy increasing patrols off Somali coast
37. Attractive tax write-offs for those who buy hybrid automobiles
38. Cash for clunkers program offers vouchers to trade in fuel inefficient, polluting old cars for new cars; stimulated auto sales
39. Announced plans to purchase fuel efficient American-made fleet for the federal government
40. Expanded the SCHIP program to cover health care for 4 million more children
41. Signed national service legislation; expanded national youth service program
42. Instituted a new policy on Cuba, allowing Cuban families to return home to visit loved ones
43. Ended the previous policy of not regulating and labeling carbon dioxide emissions
44. Expanding vaccination programs
45. Immediate and efficient response to the floods in North Dakota and other natural disasters
46. Closed offshore tax safe havens
47. Negotiated deal with Swiss banks to permit US government to gain access to records of tax evaders and criminals
48. Ended the previous policy of offering tax benefits to corporations who outsource American jobs; the new policy is to promote in-sourcing to bring jobs back
49. Ended the previous practice of protecting credit card companies; in place of it are new consumer protections from credit card industry's predatory practices
50. Energy producing plants must begin preparing to produce 15% of their energy from renewable sources
51. Lower drug costs for seniors
52. Ended the previous practice of forbidding Medicare from negotiating with drug manufacturers for cheaper drugs; the federal government is now realizing hundreds of millions in savings
53. Increasing pay and benefits for military personnel
54. Improved housing for military personnel
55. Initiating a new policy to promote federal hiring of military spouses
56. Improved conditions at Walter Reed Military Hospital and other military hospitals
57. Increasing student loans
58. Increasing opportunities in AmeriCorps program
59. Sent envoys to Middle East and other parts of the world that had been neglected for years; reengaging in multilateral and bilateral talks and diplomacy
60. Established a new cyber security office
61. Beginning the process of reforming and restructuring the military 20 years after the Cold War to a more modern fighting force; this includes new procurement policies, increasing size of military, new technology and cyber units and operations, etc.
62. Ended previous policy of awarding no-bid defense contracts
63. Ordered a review of hurricane and natural disaster preparedness
64. Established a National Performance Officer charged with saving the federal government money and making federal operations more efficient
65. Students struggling to make college loan payments can have their loans refinanced
66. Improving benefits for veterans
67. Many more press conferences and town halls and much more media access than previous administration
68. Instituted a new focus on mortgage fraud
69. The FDA is now regulating tobacco
70. Ended previous policy of cutting the FDA and circumventing FDA rules
71. Ended previous practice of having White House aides rewrite scientific and environmental rules, regulations, and reports
72. Authorized discussions with North Korea and private mission by Pres. Bill Clinton to secure the release of two Americans held in prisons
73. Authorized discussions with Myanmar and mission by Sen. Jim Web to secure the release of an American held captive
74. Making more loans available to small businesses
75. Established independent commission to make recommendations on slowing the costs of Medicare
76. Appointment of first Latina to the Supreme Court
77. Authorized construction/opening of additional health centers to care for veterans
78. Limited salaries of senior White House aides; cut to $100,000
79. Renewed loan guarantees for Israel
80. Changed the failing/status quo military command in Afghanistan
81. Deployed additional troops to Afghanistan
82. New Afghan War policy that limits aerial bombing and prioritizes aid, development of infrastructure, diplomacy, and good government practices by Afghans
83. Announced the long-term development of a national energy grid with renewable sources and cleaner, efficient energy production
84. Returned money authorized for refurbishment of White House offices and private living quarters
85. Paid for redecoration of White House living quarters out of his own pocket
86. Held first Seder in White House
87. Attempting to reform the nation's healthcare system which is the most expensive in the world yet leaves almost 50 million without health insurance and millions more under insured
88. Has put the ball in play for comprehensive immigration reform
89. Has announced his intention to push for energy reform
90. Has announced his intention to push for education reform

Source: "Robert P. Watson, Ph.D. Coordinator of American Studies at Lynn University"
Email: [email protected]
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x260753

Also:

"EPA Sharply Limits Mountaintop Mining"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x257998

"Obama administration has issued tough gas mileage standards for new cars and trucks hitting dealerships in the future...
President Obama suckered the GOP into showing that they are so obstructionist they would oppose their own agenda, if only it were proposed by the President. They were all watching one hand, which he was waving around to attract all the attention. Meanwhile, his other hand was doing something else entirely.

"This is the biggest step the federal government will have ever taken to save oil, cut greenhouse emissions and save consumers money," said David Friedman, research director of the clean vehicles program at the Union of Concerned Scientists."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8067959

Furthermore:

"The new CAFE standards (CAFE stands for Corporate Average Fuel Economy) are the most aggressive fuel-efficiency standards ever established at the national level. This is also the first time the U.S. government has exercised its authority to control vehicle tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming."

http://environment.about.com/od/environmentallawpolicy/a/obama-sets-new-fuel-efficiency-standards.htm

[MadHound]

37. Well, I lot of that is "attempted", a lot of that is in the future tense,

And frankly, like doubling down in Afghanistan, is simply wrong.

But again, why are we implementing Bush era mining strategies? Please, try to stay on topic.

[ClarkUSA]

39. A lot of it is a done deal and a lot of is in the past tense, so I have answered your question...

You asked: "Umm, gee, Dems have the majority now, what are they doing?"

The Obama administration has done more for environmental causes than any other administration in history. The fact that you would rather ignore that so you can move the goalpost to ask another question is a tactic that is unfortunate.

[flyarm]

49. oh you mean like drilling our pristine shorelines..over 1 million miles of them ..

geesh I do not remember one republican doing that..hmm..do you? Not Reagan, Not GHBush..Not Gw Bush..now lets see how many years does that encompass...20 years of repub leadership..and 8 of Clinton..and in a little over 1 year Obama did to our shorelines and coastlines what no one has done to destroy our eco-system and our waterways in 28 years!!!!!!!!!

By the way..the ban on offshore drilling has been a Democratic Party platform and been protected by democrats for 28 years..until now.

You do not want to hear what democrats in my state of Florida are saying right now..it isn't pretty..in fact it is downright ugly..and not even being wispered!!!

eom

[ClarkUSA]

56. Um, no one is "drilling our pristine shorelines..over 1 million miles of them" right now, so chill

<< in a little over 1 year Obama did to our shorelines and coastlines what no one has done to destroy our eco-system and our waterways in 28 years!!!!!!!!!>>

Tell your Democratic friends in Florida that Ron Reagan, Jr. is against Obama's offshore drilling plan but even he conceded on MSNBC last week that there won't even be any drilling until 2034. Do you know why the White House is doing this? President Obama needs the votes of Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans to pass Senator Kerry's climate change bill through Congress. There are 66 million square miles of oil leases that have not been developed. These oil leases you are referring to won't be sold for years and after they are, oil companies will have to spend billions of dollars and many years to carry out environmental impact studies. Many of them won't bother because the cost-to-benefits ratio is in doubt.

Furthermore, Obama's plan makes him the first president to declare off-limits the environmentally-sensitive waters off Bristol Bay in Alaska and the entire West Coast. He also canceled four scheduled lease sales in Alaska and called for more study before allowing new lease sales in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. Maybe you didn't know this, but one of the first things he did as POTUS was to cancel the long-term offshore plans Bush had approved, so consider this new plan to be a carrot to achieve the first climate change bill in this nation's history.

[flyarm]

62. The west coast is already littered with them..ever been to Santa Barbara?

they fuck the entire coast line there..and they are banned by state Law of Calif to put anymore on the Ca Coast..Obama couldn't even by pass that!

And protecting Alaska doesn't do jack shit for Florida that will now be sandwiched with the damn things 2/3rd the way down the entire state!


And I don't buy for one fucking minute that these shitty things will not be sitting in my back yard as fast as they can get them in the Gulf..the bastards have been dying to get them into the Gulf!

You are buying total bullshit!

I can tell you this..as a former delegate for Florida..I am not the sucker you think I could be..I don't buy the bullshit for one mili - second!
These bastards have been drooling for the Gulf..

even Martinez (R) senator went against the GOP on drilling!

this is one sick negotiating sell out..and if you buy that..i have alligator infested swap land for you damn cheap! come on down..and don't worry the alligators won't eat you! ( that is about as truthful as your post!)

[ClarkUSA]

66. That's not President Obama's fault. He has banned offshore drilling off the ENTIRE West Coast.

Your hyperbole is not based on anything but subjective emotion. You obviously didn't read any of the facts I offered, so I repeat:

Ron Reagan, Jr. is against Obama's offshore drilling plan but he conceded on MSNBC last week that there won't even be any drilling until 2034.

There are 66 million square miles of oil leases that have not been developed. These oil leases you are referring to won't be sold for years and after they are, oil companies will have to spend billions of dollars and it will take decades to carry out the proper environmental impact studies. Many of them won't bother because the cost-to-benefits ratio is in doubt.

Obama's plan makes him the first president to declare off-limits the environmentally-sensitive waters off Bristol Bay in Alaska and the entire West Coast. He also canceled four scheduled lease sales in Alaska and called for more study before allowing new lease sales in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas.

One of the first things he did as POTUS was to cancel the long-term offshore plans Bush had approved.

Unless you have anything fact-based to offer as a means of having a dialogue, I will bid you goodnight.

Good luck with your next governor.

[flyarm]

81. And opened the big enchilada The biggest portion of the east coast and most of Florida!

and the people of Calif banned it..not Obama..with their votes! LOng before there was an Obama who is now setting up the possible destruction of my states Eco System , economy and tourism.

Democrats no longer have a platform..Obama has completely wiped out what democrats ever campaigned on , stood on and promised.

Every democratic Candidate has stood with the democrats and enviornmentalists to keep the oil drilling out of Florida..now he has managed to wipe that off the political platform..against his own campaign speeches..here in Florida..

along with FISA Immunity for the fuckers spying on Americans..

The re-authorization of the Patriot act

How is that Habeas Corpus working for us?????? oh it is not..

70,000 more soldiers sent to Afgan.

Gitmo still open

Renditions still going on and those who would speak out about it (peaceful people) are refused VISA's to enter the USA

Wall street CONTINUES TO bend over the American people

The Banks have all our money, bankrupting this country and loans nothing to small businesses..come to Fla or Calif and see the boarded up businesses..they are everywhere and are a daily reminder this country is in the tank.

WE can't bitch about stolen elections, when the entire world saw our delegates here in Florida were stolen..and 2 million votes were negated and disenfranchised ..because a republican legislature tagged on the law to abolish DRE machines in the state of Florida ( the only state in the nation to ban DRE voting machines might I add)

But hey ..many of us dems here in Fla now think there was a deal cut with our repig legislature to do that for Obama and pay back is the drill baby drill!

And I haven't even touched on the womens rights and the direct assault on Womens riights..that I have spent an entire lifetime fighting for..

So tell me what exactly the democrats platform will be..when everything democrats have believed in has morped into a republican platform. Don't worry the republican platform is still intact..democrats?? well we have now a lovely republican platform..

Oh and did I mention Henry Kissinger and Timmy Geithner?? google that too!! Here I'll help you out..


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

shortly after taking office..Obama asked Henry Kissinger..knick name.."The Butcher of Cambodia"..to represent his administration in Talks with Russia..

lets look as some serious connections here of Geithner , Kissinger and Obama...shall we..( edit to add: much of this i have posted many times in the past.)


TIMOTHY GEITHNER

Biography

Early life and education
Geithner was born in Brooklyn, New York.<2> He spent most of his childhood living outside the United States, including present-day Zimbabwe, Zambia, India and Thailand, where he completed high school at International School Bangkok.<3> He then attended Dartmouth College, graduating with a B.A. in government and Asian studies in 1983.<4> He earned an M.A. in international economics and East Asian studies from Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies in 1985.<4><5> He has studied Chinese<4> and Japanese.<6>

Geithner's paternal grandfather, Paul Herman Geithner (1902–1972), emigrated with his parents from the German town of Zeulenroda to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1908.<7> His father, Peter F. Geithner, is the director of the Asia program at the Ford Foundation in New York.

During the early 1980s, Peter Geithner oversaw the Ford Foundation's microfinance programs in Indonesia being developed by S. Ann Dunham-Soetoro, President Barack Obama's mother, and they met in person at least once.<8>

Timothy Geithner's mother, Deborah Moore Geithner, is a pianist and piano teacher in Larchmont, New York where his parents currently reside. Geithner's maternal grandfather, Charles F. Moore, was an adviser to President Dwight D. Eisenhower and served as a vice president of Ford Motor Company.

Early career

After completing his studies,

Geithner worked for Kissinger and Associates in Washington, D.C., for three years and then joined the International Affairs division of the U.S. Treasury Department in 1988.

He went on to serve as an attaché at the US Embassy in Tokyo. He was deputy assistant secretary for international monetary and financial policy (1995–1996), senior deputy assistant secretary for international affairs (1996-1997), assistant secretary for international affairs (1997–1998).<5>

He was Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs (1998–2001) under Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers.<5> Summers was his mentor,<10><11> but other sources call him a Rubin protégé.<11><12><13>



In 2002 he left the Treasury to join the Council on Foreign Relations as a Senior Fellow in the International Economics department.<14> He was director of the Policy Development and Review Department (2001-2003) at the International Monetary Fund.<5>


In October 2003, he was named president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.<15> His salary in 2007 was $398,200.<16> Once at the New York Fed, he became Vice Chairman of the Federal Open Market Committee component. In 2006, he also became a member of the Washington-based financial advisory body, the Group of Thirty.<17>


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Timmy's dad :


Peter F. Geithner, is the director of the Asia program at the Ford Foundation in New York. During the early 1980s,

Peter Geithner oversaw the Ford Foundation's microfinance programs in Indonesia being developed by

S. Ann Dunham-Soetoro,

President Barack Obama's mother, and they met in person at least once



Geithner's maternal grandfather, Charles F. Moore, was an adviser to President Dwight D. Eisenhower and served as a vice president of Ford Motor Company.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


now this should alarm every true democrat on these boards!!!!!!!


and From an April post of mine here at DU: and please, don't believe me ...click the link..it was in the CFR publication!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Remarks by National Security Adviser Jones at 45th Munich Conference on Security Policy

Published February 8, 2009




Speaker: James L. Jones


U.S. National Security Adviser Jones ( edit to add: new advisor hired by Obama!!!!) gave these remarks at the 45th Munich Conference on Security Policy at the Hotel Bayerischer Hof on

February 8, 2009.





"Thank you for that wonderful tribute to Henry Kissinger yesterday. Congratulations. As the most recent National Security Advisor of the United States, I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger, filtered down through General Brent Scowcroft and Sandy Berger, who is also here. We have a chain of command in the National Security Council that exists today.




Source: http://www.cfr.org/publication/18515/remar ... ...

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Report: AIG bailout money behind banks' recent profitability

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009 /...

snip:
The financial blog Zero Hedge has posted an "exclusive" that claims that according to an insider's account, AIG (yes, that AIG) "was responsible for the banks' January and February profitability."


Saying it is "rarely speechless," ZH offered "a moment of silence for the phenomenal scam that continues unabated in the financial markets, and now has the full oversight and blessing of the U.S. government, which in turns keeps on duping U.S. taxpayers into believing everything is good."


ZH says the insider perspective came in an email from "a correlation desk trader." Unless you're a finance whiz (and who is these days?!) you might get lost in the explanation of how AIG supposedly engineered this feat of profitability. But ZH tries to explain the "mumbo jumbo" in "layman's terms":


AIG, knowing it would need to ask for much more capital from the Treasury imminently, decided to throw in the towel, and gifted major bank counter-parties with trades which were egregiously profitable to the banks, and even more egregiously money losing to the U.S. taxpayers, who had to dump more and more cash into AIG, without having the U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner disclose the real extent of this, for lack of a better word, fraudulent scam.


In simple terms think of it as an auto dealer, which knows that U.S. taxpayers will provide for an infinite amount of money to fund its ongoing sales of horrendous vehicles (think Pontiac Azteks): the company decides to sell all the cars currently in contract, to lessors at far below the amortized market value, thereby generating huge profits for these lessors, as these turn around and sell the cars at a major profit, funded exclusively by U.S. taxpayers (readers should feel free to provide more gripping allegories).

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Tell me how does any democrat in NOV stand in front of democrats and ask for their vote and money and time, when everything in the democratic platform has been evicerated?????????? When everyone in this congress and White house has crapped all over the democratic platform.

How are these wars working out for you?? Special opps digging bullets out of women they murdered..out of their dead carcasses..how sad is that..and the Obama propaganda machine was telling our allies we had to stay in Afgan to protect the women and children from the Taliban..and even Karzai is saying he might join the Taliban..what a fucking joke!

And I haven't even touched on the Unions and Teachers........

[ClarkUSA]

84. According to Ron Reagan, Jr. - an opponent of off-shore drilling - drilling won't start until 2034.

President Obama didn't just ban oil drilling along California, he banned it along it off Oregon and Washington, too. Though CA has a state ban, the federal ban certainly carries addtional weight because it makes it doubly difficult to overturn the decision. Also, Oregon and Washington do not have state bans. Funny how you conveniently "forgot" that. :eyes:

It's interesting to note that you and others seem to be determinedly ignoring the environmental significance of the first-time ever banning of drilling in Alaska's Bristol Bay and Obama's cancelling of four Bush-era oil leases and a postponement of drilling in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas as one of his first acts as president. Tarring President Obama with a broad-stroke brush wouldn't be so simple if folks acknowledged this part of the issue, eh?

Here are some facts:

1. Oil leases won't be sold for years.

2. After that, there will have to be billions of dollars worth of exhaustive environmental impact analyses reports preceding any exploration that will take decades to complete until drilling is finally approved.

3. There are very few companies willing to do that because of the improbably , since there are already 66 billion square miles of undeveloped oil leases already on the books.

4. President Obama's climate change bill, if passed and augmented through the ensuing years, will mitigate the man-made damage Americans have done, which is the whole point of using this plan as a "carrot".

<<Democrats no longer have a platform..>>

Sorry, but I stopped taking your polemic screed seriously after this bit of silly hyperbole. After skimming through the rest, my initial decision seems to have been the correct one. Conspiracy theories, as a rule, are a fool's errand.

[flyarm]

88. And if you believe that ..you must believe in pink pigs flying! eom

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

74. What's the right thing in this case?

Hey, go dump it on private land! That certainly won't hurt the environment at all!

[sabrina 1]

3. Unrec'd for posting information

that is of interest to anyone who cares about this country.

Rec'd for keeping us informed even it means that we have to be disappointed that a Democratic president can't seem to remember who elected him.

[EFerrari]

5. I have to get some work done so will have to take my lumps in abstentia for a few hours.

[Bluebear]

11. Information, bad; message discipline, good

This is how the game is played anymore :(

[tekisui]

16. Comrade, you just wandered off message.

You are not to mention the message control.

These talking points pukers are just regular people, don't ya know?:crazy:

[katandmoon]

8. Of course he did.

[amborin]

10. K&R who did we vote for again? one bushism after another with this admin

[ClarkUSA]

18. Yeah, HCR was such Republican thing to do, not one of them voted for it!

:sarcasm:

[amborin]

21. and that's what's so sickening! just like the stimulus bill! HCR was from the Heritage Foundation

of all things!

yet dems got the same flack and opposition they would have gotten if they had fought for and implemented a PROGRESSIVE bill, or at least if Obama had kept his campaign promise and given us a robust Public Option.

But, no; just as the stimulus was watered down to include rethug tax cuts, without getting ONE SINGLE rethug vote, so, too, HCR was essentially a huge boondoggle to Big Pharma and health ins corporations, and there, too, not one rethug vote

Sickening when dems implement rethug policies!

[ClarkUSA]

23. "HCR was from the Heritage Foundation"? Did they write it for Nancy Pelosi? I had no idea.

I do know that the idea of a mandate was in both Edwards' and Hillary's HC plans. In fact, HillaryCare was RomneyCare to a T. However, the HCR law pulled the rug from the mandate idea because it is essentially unenforceable, which Republicans are clueless about but it gives President Obama a clever PR weapon in order to bludgeon the GOP with to make them look like the obstructionists they are.

<<HCR was essentially a huge boondoggle to Big Pharma and health ins corporations>>

I've heard this polemic repeated again and again. If it were true, then why did the insurance industry and the Chamber of Commerce spend BILLIONS trying to defeat HCR passage?

<<if Obama had kept his campaign promise and given us a robust Public Option>>

THE PUBLIC OPTION DIDN'T HAVE THE VOTES, PERIOD. Just ask Dennis Kucinich.

<<just as the stimulus was watered down to include rethug tax cuts>>

Not sure what you are talking about, but the middle-class tax cuts that affect 95% of all Americans are something that Democrats pushed through, resulting in some very pleasant surprises for some DUers. As for the stimulus plan, it saved the U.S. economy from a second Great Depression and is funding community health clinics and saved innummerable teacher, police, and fireman jobs across the nation as well as providing much-needed jobs for long-overdue infrastructure improvement.

[amborin]

28. the Heritage Foundation came up with the idea of the mandate

do you happen to remember how Obama campaigned AGAINST the mandate?


Just as he campaigned FOR the PUBLIC OPTION?????


sorry, the public option DID have the votes; any one who says otherwise is just repeating talking points;

Dennis Kucinich was bought out; he's lost my approval.

Look, dems were herded together and told: "if HCR fails, the Obama presidency is crippled from here on out. Don't be the one to take the blame for this."

[ClarkUSA]

32. So what? Edwards' and Hillary's HC plans both had mandates. Did you rail against them, too?

I doubt it. :eyes:

Plus, as I said before, but you have conveniently ignored, is there is no mechanism for enforcement in the HCR law making the issue moot except for the purpose of making Republicans look like knee-jerk obstructionists.

I also repeat: The public option didn't have the votes. President Obama and Dennis Kucinich can face political reality. It's obvious some folks at DU can't.

[Smashcut]

42. Well, Obama certainly did rail against it

But you've conveniently forgotten that. :eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

43. Moving the goalposts? You're exaggerating Obama's position & you obviously didn't read my posts...

... because if you did, you would have known that I addressed President Obama's clever sleight of hand performed via HCR re: the mandate (e.g., there is no enforcement or penalty) which effectively renders it null but hands him a bipartisan talking point that makes Republicans look like hypocritical obstructionists.

[amborin]

57. more mental gymnastics to try, in vain, to defend the mandate, straight from the Heritage Foundation

the irony is, you don't seem to see what you're really saying, in your zeal to defend a lousy bill: essentially, in your post, you're accusing Obama of duplicitous and deceptive practices and behaviors; now, no one is naive enough to think pols don't engage in this kind of behavior, but, still.....

[ClarkUSA]

58. That's false. Answer my question: Did you rail against Edwards' and Hillary's HC plans, too?

I doubt it. :eyes:

You do know that both of their plans contained mandates, right? In fact, HillaryCare was RomneyCare to a T, except she refused to answer questions regarding the mandate penalty because it was politically sensitive.

Unlike Edwards and Hillary, President Obama is not going to make people pay for ignoring the mandate. Oh, and another thing: there is nothing "duplicitous and deceptive" about something that was spelled out in the HCR bill, plain and clear. It's not President Obama's fault that the Republicans didn't do their homework, is it? ;)

[amborin]

60. sorry, but

your attempts to defend are getting very humorous, more than anything

look, the HCR bill is a huge corporate giveaway, there's no denying that

lower income people will get to purchase bronze plans! do you know what lousy coverage that is? they won't be able to afford the co-pays and deductibles.

if a rethug had pushed this corporate subsidy bill, i'd wager you'd be howling!

try to look at the policies that are being enacted, not the personalities behind them!

[ClarkUSA]

61. Why won't you answer a simple question? Hmm? Why the "mental gymnastics"?

<<look, the HCR bill is a huge corporate giveaway, there's no denying that>>

Prove it. I doubt you can. If it's such a "huge corporate giveaway" then why did the insurance companies spend BILLIONS trying to defeat it?

<<lower income people will get to purchase bronze plans! do you know what lousy coverage that is? they won't be able to afford the co-pays and deductibles.>>

A family of four who make $40K will get a plan worth over $11,000 for ~ $2000, according to a MSNBC interview last week with Linda Douglass, White House spokesperson.

What proof do you have for your claims? Absolutely none, I'll bet.

[amborin]

65. "white house spokesperson"

that says it all

she's selling a product, for pete's sake! do you think she'd denigrate it on national tv?

of course not!

and, yes, i have proof to support my statements

[ClarkUSA]

69. Still avoiding my question? Lemme guess, you did NOT rail at Edwards' and Hillary's HC plans.

Am I right?

<<she's selling a product, for pete's sake! do you think she'd denigrate it on national tv?

of course not!>>

I have also heard news anchors say the same thing when discussing the HCR plan. Unless you can prove them wrong, I consider Linda Dougless to be more credible than an anonymous DU blogger who won't answer a simple question.

<<and, yes, i have proof to support my statements>>

I have yet to see any.

Proof, by the way, should be from credible news sources, not biased online sources who have an axe to grind.

[amborin]

72. sorry!

i wasn't backing either of their plans

i don't even remember what they were; i think, perhaps incorrectly, that Clinton's plan involved a robust public option; i'm totally in favor of an enforced mandate, if, and only if, there is a robust P.O.


Otherwise, "news anchors" are hardly bastions of truth, insight, or accuracy. Sorry! Citing them as evidence won't work!

[ClarkUSA]

77. So now you're saying you support an "enforced mandate" - that Heritage Foundation idea?!

Talk about "mental gymnastics"!!!

:rofl:



<<and, yes, i have proof to support my statements>>

I still have yet to see any.

[sabrina 1]

64. Yes, I railed against them and that was a deciding factor for me

and many others regarding who to support in the primaries. When Obama said to Hillary, (and McCain btw) that he disagreed with mandated insurance because: 'Mandated insurance would require an enforcement mechanism and I don't think it's fair to force people to buy something they cannot afford', that decided me to support him. That and Hillary's and Edwards' original vote for the Iraq war. However, I wasn't giving Obama a pass on the war vote since he wasn't in the Senate at the time, and opposing it was politically safe for him.

I'm not sure what your point is, but on several occasions Obama stated that he opposed mandated insurance and he gave the reasons why. He was right then.

If he had agreed with both McCain and Hillary, he might not have won the nomination. That's how important that issue was to many progressives, me included. As far as I know the only explanation he has given for his flip flop on that issue was: 'my thinking has evolved'. I would disagree, going along with Republican ideas is not evolving it is regressing.

[ClarkUSA]

79. I was speaking to amborin, who was against the mandate before she was for it, not you. n/t

[sabrina 1]

52. Nothing has votes until the leadership

of a party, actually leads. The PO did have the votes, but the WH did not want a PO. We know now that a promise was made behind closed doors not to include a PO. The president we elected decided not to fight for it, but rather to include Republican ideas. Not because they are Republican ideas, but because that is what the Health Insurance Lobby paid for.

Stop using Kucinich, a man you and your few allies here denigrated beyond belief when it suited your to do so.

Dennis Kucinich had votes for his Amendment, bi-partisan votes. But the WH killed that amendment, and there was support for the PO, until the WH again, let it be known, there would be no PO.

To say there was 'no leadership' is incorrect. They led Congress expertly, AWAY from the PO. That is what the leadership of a party does. They were extremely effective in their leadership. The problem was they were not working for us.

And you're wasting your time with this constant defense of a Corporate Written and funded bill. Most people are not stupid. The don't buy it. They never will. We WATCHED what happened. And Kucinich knows what happened, he chose to give the president a win this time, because he knew what he was up against, and he wanted to stay in the game. He was abused, like all the Progressives in Congress. They were placed in an untenable position, 'you're either with us or against us'. That is the 'change' we voted for?

[ClarkUSA]

54. "The PO did have the votes"?? Prove it. Give me a credible source for your claim. n/t

[sabrina 1]

59. Sanders: Senate has the votes to pass public option via reconciliation

From Bernie Sanders in Feb. of this year:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/83641-sanders-senate-has-the-votes-to-pass-public-option-via-reconciliation

"I think we do have 50 votes in the Senate for a public option and frankly I don't know why the president has not put it in and I hope that we can inject it," Sanders said on MSNBC. "I think it's a very important part of healthcare reform."

There's no mystery about why Obama did not fight for the PO.

And from Howard Dean in September of last year:

http://www.blogforiowa.com/blog/_archives/2009/9/18/4324747.html

Congress Has The Votes Needed To Pass A Public Option - TODAY
From Howard Dean, M.D.

We've worked together since the beginning of the healthcare debate to draw a line in the sand - the choice of a public option must be included in any reform bill passed this year. And every time Republicans have tried to kill it or the insurance industry has claimed it's already dead, we've stood up and proven them wrong.

The new line from opponents of reform is that Congress doesn't have the votes to pass a public option.

Once again, thanks to you, we've proven them wrong.

We've asked everyone in Congress where they stand. At least 218 House and 51 Senate Democrats have said they would vote for the final healthcare bill if it included the choice of a public option rather than vote against the bill and kill reform. That means Congress has the majority votes needed to pass a public option - TODAY.

Now is the season for action. The majority of Americans want it. Majority votes in Congress will pass it. Join President Obama in calling on Congress to get the job done this year.

Unfortunately, President Obama never did call on Congress to get the job done at all

There are plenty of other links I can provide, all of which WERE posted over the past year, so you must have missed that side of the debate.

So, either Dean and Sanders were lying, or the WH was lying. The evidence seems to favor Dean and Sanders. They were certainly not the only ones making that claim, but that's enough to answer your question.

Now, I'm sure you will try to spin it. Feel free, but I wouldn't waste my time if I were you. The WH made a deal and sold us down the river on the PO.

[ClarkUSA]

63. Be honest now. Sanders did NOT say that, as per your source.

He said, ""I think we do have 50 votes in the Senate for a public option..." which is not the same thing as what you claimed he said. The only source who is credible in this respect is Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is the ultimate vote counter in the Senate, as Speaker Pelosi is in the House. Do you have any quote from Reid that states this was ever the case?

As for Howard Dean, did he ever publicly state the 218 House and 51 Senate Democrats' names or is a September 2009 blog entry all you have? I am leery of believing anyone, much less Howard Dean, based on a unsourced claim on a blog. After all, he's the guy who wanted to "Kill the Bill" one week and then recanted the following week, so consistency of messaging is not his strong point.

[sabrina 1]

67. Not surprising you would attempt to spin what he said.

Both he and Dean pointed out that it would require that the president be on board. Both issued an invitation for him to do so. One, as you can see for yourself, Sanders, stating that he did not know why the president had not included it.

Stop while you're behind. Both those statements prove my point. The Leadership of the Party did a fantastic job of killing the PO. There WAS leadership, contrary to what many people have said, and it worked. It just wasn't working for the American people, a majority of whom did support a PO, just like Dean, Sanders and a majority of democrats in Congress. All they needed was a WH that was on their side. But the WH was working for the Insurance Industry.

Btw, those are not the only two people who stated that the votes were there. You can spin all you want, but people are very capable of seeing the writing on the wall.

This DLC administration made a deal to kill the PO, and that is the end of the story.

The Insurance Corps outbid the American people and sadly, we did not have a president who was willing to fight them. Sanders was letting us know that the president was not on board. Not that many of us didn't know that already.

[ClarkUSA]

71. I am not the one who is leaving out a very important qualifier from Sanders' statement.

Your polemic is unproven.

<<The Leadership of the Party did a fantastic job of killing the PO... This DLC administration made a deal to kill the PO, and that is the end of the story.
The Insurance Corps outbid the American people and sadly, we did not have a president who was willing to fight them."

I am not interested in conspiracy theories. Where are your facts? Funny how Dennis Kucinich, a champion of the public option, disagrees with your fanciful version of the events. Read the article he wrote for Esquire magazine. He was quite appreciative of the President's HCR efforts:

"... I kinda remember the feeling that I had about watching him as he was dealing with this and, you know, trying to do what he felt was best for the nation." Source: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/qa/dennis-kucinich-health-care-bill-032210

I doubt you know more about what went on behind the scenes on the public option than Dennis Kucinich.

[sabrina 1]

73. Funny how those who couldn't say enough

derogatory things about Kucinich now expect that using his words will somehow bolster their case. I do not know what your attitude to DK was before but it is becoming a habit with those who accused him of such nefarious intentions as 'wanting to kill 45,000 Americans', now using him to try to make a point. Despicable behavior although not unexpected. And of course it fails.

It is clear DK did not agree with Obama even from your own quote. All he says is that Obama was 'TRYING to do what HE FELT was best for the nation'. It's quite possible that the Ins. Lobbyists DID convince Obama to change his mind and that killing the PO WAS good for the nation. After all, he wasn't talking to progressives. That's all Kucinich was saying, that at least his intentions were good, but NOT saying that he agreed.

Kucinich never attacked the president even as he disagreed with him. He is very kindly giving him the benefit of the doubt by saying that he, Obama, THINKS he is doing what is good for the country. He is not saying he agrees, because he doesn't.

A NYT reporter has already confirmed that what most people thought was true, that the Insurance Ind. wanted the PO killed and made a deal with the WH to do so. So, no it is not a fantasy, it has been confirmed.

I notice you cannot refute the fact the Dean was also certain that the votes were there. And they were not alone. This lie that the votes weren't there is not going to work. Democrats had control of both houses of Congress and the WH. If they wanted a PO, we would have had it.

As Obama himself said about the Senate Bill: "I got 95% of what I wanted". He did not want a PO.

[ClarkUSA]

78. Kucinich praised President Obama for "trying to do what he felt was best for the nation."

You are parsing his motives for the same reasons you tried to omit an important qualifier in Sanders' quote.

Dean's alleged statement on an Iowa blog site is unsubstantiated. I don't recall him ever saying so in his many TV appearances. Dean has said alot of things that contradict each other. He once said he wanted to "Kill the Bill!!" only to recant days later. Unless he offered a list of names to Reid, I doubt Reid had the votes. After all, political staffers will say anything to get a person off the phone.

Harry Reid has never once said that there were enough votes to pass PO and he would know more than anyone. President Obama has repeatedly said there were not the votes and he should know, too. PO advocates Reps. Weiner and Dennis Kucinich also never claimed the Senate had the votes. If you want to believe a blog entry, fine. I don't.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluebear]

90. +

[flyarm]

51. and 70% of it was written by the former VP of Wellpoint no less!! eom

[ClarkUSA]

55. Really? Do you have a credible source for your polemic? n/t

[flyarm]

68. google is your friend..try it..google : former VP of Wellpoint wrote of health care bill

and if you have AOL..try this link..

http://search.aol.com/aol/search?s_it=topsearchbox.search&q=former+VP+of+Wellpoint+wrote++of+health+care+bill

I won't play that game anymore ,trying to figure out what " you think is credible"..go look it up yourself.

[Bluebear]

70. that should shock "ignored' lol!

[ClarkUSA]

76. Hillary was on Wal-Mart's BoD for far longer than Fowler was at Wellpoint.Is Hillary suspect, too?

Liz Fowler is a Senate staffer and aide to Max Baucus now. Part of her job description is to help write HCR. I never heard any objections from Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich over her help, so why the witch hunt? It's ridiculous.

Fowler was at Wellpoint for 21 months in public affairs. Big whoop. So what? Senator Gillibrand defended Big Tobacco in lawsuits for longer than that prior to entering politics: http://awearnessblog.com/2009/03/gillibrand-her-big-tobacco-choice.php

Hillary was on Wal-Mart's Board of Directors for six years:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Hillary+Wal+Mart+Board+of+Directors&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

I guess all three women are not to be trusted, eh? :eyes:

Are you seriously implying that anyone who works for companies on your shit list is a secret unpaid lobbyist for those companies forever? That makes zero sense. If that were the case, then Hillary is not really SoS but is actually a lobbyist for union-busting, racist, sexist class-action lawsuit galore Wal-Mart and Sen. Gillibrand is not really representing New Yorkers but is a Big Tobacco lobbyist. Is that what really you think?

:shrug:

[flyarm]

80. Hillary is not the point, who was talking about Hillary? Not me..read the damn bill and look

at the document portion and see who was the author of the bill..go ahead..I am not doing it for you..is that credible enough?

Look I had this game played on me, as did all dems for years with the bushbots..I don't play this game anymore..look it up yourself.

While you are at it ..Look up the name James Roosevelt. Remember the Ways and Means committee that took my states delegates?? Go ahead google is still you friend..doesn't make it hard to understand why 2 million votes in Fla were thrown out and this bullshit bill was what Obama fought for! It wasn't for "THE PEOPLE"..

Thats right cloud the truth will Hillary Clinton..when she has nothing to do with this conversation. You are masking the truth with crap.

But you know that don't you.

[ClarkUSA]

82. I am making a point about Fowler using Hillary and Sen. Gillibrand's past employ as a comparison.

In other words, your insinuation that a past employer of Liz Fowler is directing her present job description as a Senate staffer is intellectually bankrupt. If that were true, then Hillary's six-year tenure on Wal-Mart's Board of Directors makes her an eternal stooge for Wal-Mart and Gillibrand's past as a hired gun for Big Tobacco means she is forever a mole for Big Tobacco.

[flyarm]

83. Hillary isn't credited with the Halth care bill as the Author ..Liz Fowler is! eom

[ClarkUSA]

85. Fowler is not HCR's "Author"; what's in HCR are not her ideas. She's just a Senate staffer...

... who happened to be tasked with helping incorporate all the various Congress critters' ideas into written form. For you to imply anything else indicates that you have no notion of how a bill is crafted.

<<Hillary isn't credited with the Halth care bil>>

Gasp! Are you saying that all of Hillary's op-eds and ideas on foreign policy is actually guided by her secret lobbying for Wal-Mart??!!!

Thanks to you, I see it all so clearly... Hillary's real foreign policy aim is to make sure Wal-Mart's profit margins skyrockets as they kill Mom & Pop stores around the globe!!!!!!!!

Oh noes!!!!!!!!!

:sarcasm:

[Lorien]

75. Sadly so. nt

[PufPuf23]

19. Obama appears pretty clueless about the environment

starting out with appointing Vilsack and Salazar to head the Departments of Agriculture and Interior respectively.

I was shocked to see in the energy and environment forum that the first windfarm within a National Forest is being planned in Vermont.

Wind energy is not all it is cracked up to be.

[ClarkUSA]

20. Really? He just took the "biggest step the federal government will have ever taken to save oil"

"Obama administration has issued tough gas mileage standards for new cars and trucks hitting dealerships in the future...
President Obama suckered the GOP into showing that they are so obstructionist they would oppose their own agenda, if only it were proposed by the President. They were all watching one hand, which he was waving around to attract all the attention. Meanwhile, his other hand was doing something else entirely.

"This is the biggest step the federal government will have ever taken to save oil, cut greenhouse emissions and save consumers money," said David Friedman, research director of the clean vehicles program at the Union of Concerned Scientists."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8067959

[amborin]

22. Bush implemented that requirement in 2007; Obama was tardy in pushing it; otherwise Drill Baby Drill

[ClarkUSA]

24. Do you have a credible source for your claim? n/t

[amborin]

26. yep

"Cars and light trucks are considered separately for CAFE and are held to different standards. As of early 2004, the average for cars must exceed 27.5 mpg, and the light truck average must exceed 20.7 mpg. Trucks under 8500 pounds must average 22.5 mpg in 2008, 23.1 mpg in 2009, and 23.5 mpg in 2010. After this, new rules set varying targets based on truck size "footprint."

In late 2007, CAFE standards received their first overhaul in more than 30 years. On December 19, President Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which requires in part that automakers boost fleetwide gas mileage to 35 mpg by the year 2020. This requirement applies to all passenger automobiles, including "light trucks." Politicians had faced increased public pressure to raise CAFE standards; a July 2007 poll conducted in 30 congressional districts in seven states revealed 84-90% in favor of legislating mandatory increases.<23>

Overall fuel economy for both cars and light trucks in the U.S. market reached its highest level in 1987, when manufacturers managed 26.2 mpg (8.98 L/100 km). The average in 2004 was 24.6 mpg.<22> In that time, vehicles increased in size from an average of 3,220 pounds to 4,066 pounds (1,461 kg to 1,844 kg), in part due to an increase in truck ownership during that time from 28% to 53%.

A number of manufacturers choose to pay CAFE penalties rather than attempt to comply with the regulations. As of model year 2006, BMW, DaimlerChrysler, Volkswagen, Ferrari, Porsche and Maserati failed to meet CAFE requirements.<24>

For the 2008 model year, Mercedes-Benz had the lowest fleet average while Lotus had the highest.<25>"


from wikipedia



yes, i know, you'll say, "oh, but, amborin, Obama is doing this by 2016."

Duh, yes, 4 yrs earlier. Big Whoop! What took Obama so long to implement this law?

Political timing, perhaps? Drill, baby, drill, perhaps?

Or the upcoming gas price hikes, perhaps?

In any case, the law is from 2007.

[ClarkUSA]

29. lol! You just proved yourself wrong. The two laws are different.

The two laws differ in timelines as well as substance. Knowing BushCo, there was no way to enforce the law, just like there was no funding for No Child Left Behind. Just ask environmentalists like the one I highlighted in my previous reply:

"]This is the biggest step the federal government will have ever taken to save oil, cut greenhouse emissions and save consumers money," said David Friedman, research director of the clean vehicles program at the Union of Concerned Scientists."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8093854&mesg_id=8095291

Also:

"On May 19, 2009, President Barack Obama announced a new national policy and set tough new CAFE standards that will increase fuel efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions for all new cars and trucks sold in the United States beginning in 2012. The new CAFE standards (CAFE stands for Corporate Average Fuel Economy) are the most aggressive fuel-efficiency standards ever established at the national level. This is also the first time the U.S. government has exercised its authority to control vehicle tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming."

http://environment.about.com/od/environmentallawpolicy/a/obama-sets-new-fuel-efficiency-standards.htm

<<Duh, yes, 4 yrs earlier. Big Whoop! What took Obama so long to implement this law?>>

Um, you do know that President Obama has been in office less than 15 months and has already had the most successful first year in history, right?

[amborin]

41. Bush legislation in 2007 for 35 mpg

only now is Obama getting around to it....and only difference is the 4 yrs



otherwise....

"most successful in history"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

for big corporations, yes!

what are you smokin'?

[ClarkUSA]

44. That legislation did not limit greenhouse gas emissions and did not kick in until 2020.

President Obama is the first president to authorize the control of vehicle tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.

Since Bush didn't/doesn't even think global warming existed/exists, that's not surprising, is it?

Your claims are patently false, as I proved in my previous post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8093854&mesg_id=8095989

<<"most successful in history"

for big corporations, yes!>>

This is the second time that I've heard this polemic from you. I will repeat what I said last time: If this were true, then why did the insurance industry and the Chamber of Commerce spend BILLIONS trying to defeat HCR passage?

[amborin]

45. same legislation, just a different enforcement date

[ClarkUSA]

47. Um, it is NOT the same legislation. Did you not read what I just wrote? Obviously not.

:crazy:

[Solly Mack]

30. K/R

[blindpig]

38. The business of America is business

Doesn't matter which party or administration is nominally in charge, the priorities are the same.

It seems that the window dressing is not so important any more. Why is that?

k&r

[Swamp Rat]

46. k&r

[fascisthunter]

89. disgusting