Reid killed cap and trade for this year, what does it mean?

Favorite Answer

Cap and Trade is a retarded idea, has everything to do with controlling people and nothing to do with a free market.

It would be an utter waste of time and money except for those who would control the trading.

Even the Moron Harry Reid can see that pursuing this even further will hurt him, and the US economy.

Trying to say this is Republicans abusing the filibuster rule is absurd the rule is there, and there are no complaints from the likes of Dana when Democrats use it....Show more

Reid didn't kill C&T, he didn't have the votes to pass it,
so he voted against it so he could raise the issue again later.
It's a weird Senate rule that occasionally creates counterintuitive votes.

So Peter, your sense that Reid is a Moron can remain intact, like virtually all Dems he is oblivious to the Laffer curve and the economic damage a massive new energy tax would entail. Nor should our Lib friend Dana consider him spineless, Reid is true to the Liberal cause; his vote was a strategic retreat.

Baccheus on the other hand is spewing nonsense. And not the 'consistent from a Liberal viewpoint' nonsense Dana gives us. Cons think AGW is a scam & C&T is a stupid economy busting energy tax.

Libs think making it artificially more expensive to make & use energy is the golden path to Planetary salvation and economic revitalization.

So calling C&T defeat a liberal victory is like saying the South won the civil war.

Dems don't win either way on cap & trade. They look weak if they don't pass it, & it is unpopular & economically damaging if they do. Republicans endear themselves to their base by blocking it. Reid is in the same boat with the rest of the Dems - a bad economy means a tough re-election race. The economic damage from C&T would probable not be apparent by November, so Reid suffers more from the defeat, than the passage...Show more

I think it helps dems. It will make alarmists mad for a while but if they tried for Cap and Trade now, it would almost guarantee that he would lose his job in a few months. Frankly, I think he will be defeated anyway because the Senate is in danger of going to the Republians because the Dems aren't too popular now.

Bacheous must be dilusional or ignorant. The Supreme Court didn't mandate that CO2 be regulated. It allowed it in one of the worst rulings in modern times IMO at Justice Anthony Kennedy's whim. You sure can't count on him. There are 4 Justices that don't seem to care what the Constitution says....Show more

It is a major victory for liberals and a defeat for economic conservatives who favor a free market. The EPA is now legally bound (commanded by the Supreme Court) to regulate CO2 as pollutant, under the Clean Air Act which was signed by George Bush Sr.

Regulation is a bad way to force changes on an economy. The free-market solutions have proven to be effective without the unexpected economic results that regulation always bring. But the current GOP wants nothing to do with that.

Remember the party of Reagan and Bush Sr? Bold world leaders and free-market champions. Those were the days before the GOP became anti-education and anti-science. It is now the party of simple-minded dictated issued by Rush Limbaugh and Christian leaders. Sadly, the GOP now anti-growth in a world where other nations that are less controlled by religion are surpassing us economically.

It sound absolutely crazy, but economic conservatives who actually pay any attention to climate science have to continue to vote for big-government liberals in a hope of mitigating regulation....Show more

It means that more freedoms aren't stripped from Americans at the moment... until he can find a way to coerce, buy off or smooze enough politicians for the number of votes he needs. He didn't kill it...it was dead already...at least for now....Show more