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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

It means maybe he is coming around and knows that cap and trade would cause people to lose their jobs and be bad for the economy and that Man made climate change is a hoax

http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2010/01/16/opin...

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.php?comme...

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01....

http://seoblackhat.com/2007/03/04/global-warming-o...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsjRn5iQRZA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvcuylMrkXk

Good I don't want to pay 5.00 a gallon or more or higher energy bills.

The cap and trade will not convince the climate to change .

Well, Reid is being realistic. There aren't 60 votes, and sadly the Senate doesn't operate by a majority rule anymore. Republicans continue to abuse the filibuster rule, so the Senate needs 60 votes to get anything done. They only have about 53 from Democrats, since a few "brown dogs" as they're called are heavily funded by oil and coal industry money and won't vote for the bill. And of course they don't have a single concrete Republican vote in support. They probably could have gotten a couple (maybe Snowe, Collins, Brown), but not 7.

I still think they should have gone ahead and made the opposition put their votes on the record. Show how important the issue is and how much you care by making them filibuster instead of just crumbling to the threat of one. I think scrapping the legislation lets them off the hook way too easily, but it's also understandable because Reid knew ultimately it wouldn't pass. Spineless, but understandable.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/0...

The dumbest thing is that this hurts the economy. The good news is that we'll still get carbon regulation. The bad news is that it will come from the EPA in the form of penalties for industries which emit too much CO2. They don't get any incentives to reduce emissions unlike a cap and trade system. It's all stick and no carrot.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Agux7...

Once again, Republicans hurt the economy by putting their irrational ideology first. But, at least we still get carbon regulation.

Politically speaking, I don't know if it hurts or helps either party. The Dems can accurately continue to portray Republicans as the 'Party of No', so they might benefit. If they're smart, they'll also point out that this legislation would have created green, domestic jobs, and Republicans blocked it. Democrats *should* take advantage of Republican obstructionism on this bill, but I'm not sure they will. Republicans will continue to lie, claiming they blocked a carbon tax, but this will probably only appeal to their radical base.

The Democrats also come off as spineless for failing to even introduce a climate bill. This also hurts President Obama, who hardly did anything to support the legislation. There was no way it was going to succeed without major presidential backing, and he didn't give it. No doubt due to the terrible advice from Rahm and Axelrod, who should be fired.

A lot of environmentalists will be disillusioned by this failure. I know my approval of the President just dropped significantly. Senate Dems - there really wasn't much they could do. They negotiated with businesses, watered the bill waaaaay down, originally had a Republican co-author, and still couldn't get any Republican votes. The blame for this failure lies squarely on the Republicans' shoulders, with some blame also going to Obama for not doing nearly enough to support the bill. As Rolling Stone put it, "Instead of taking the fight to big polluters, President Obama has put global warming on the back burner." As Sen. Merkeley said, "You can't run up the white flag until you have the fight," and Democrats (especially Obama) didn't fight for this bill (except for a couragious few like John Kerry).

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/18...

I mostly agree with Baccheus except it's not a victory for liberals. I'm a liberal, and I wanted to see a climate bill pass more than anything. I'm pissed off right now - this isn't a victory for *anybody*. I acknowledge the economic realities that cap and trade is far preferable to government regulation. Bush Sr. era Republicans were right about that. Bush Jr. era Republicans sadly are ideological morons who put political games over the wellbeing of our economy and country. These are the same people who shelled out hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out the banks, but tried to block less than 5% as much to extend unemployment insurance benefits for the banks' victims. I feel like I'm living in Bizarro World.

*edit* I don't think Phoenix made one single correct statement in his entire answer (no exaggeration - every single one of his statements is wrong). That was an impressive collection of utter nonsense.

*edit* LOL I love how jim calls Baccheus delusional, claims the Supreme Court didn't mandate that greenhouse gases be regulated, and then in the next sentence admits that yes indeed the Supreme Court mandated that greenhouse gases be regulated. This guy is a hoot. And contrary to jim's delusional rant, that decision (Massachusetts vs. EPA) had nothing whatsoever to do with the constitution, it was about the Clean Air Act. Oh but jim doesn't like it, so it was a bad decision.