These cartoons are designed to appeal to the blue collar middle class workers who make up the Democratic Party's base.
Posted on 11/29/2009 10:41:54 AM PST by Winged Hussar
The role of fat cat climate profiteers' bundled contributions in so-called "climate legislation"
We read in our morning paper that the Obama Administration promises that proposed carbon regulations will cost American families less than a dollar a day, and will reduce deaths from air pollution. The latter proposition is an outright fraud because carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; our lungs always contain a far higher concentration than the air around any coal-fired power plant. Obama's dishonest efforts to equate carbon dioxide to genuine pollutants like sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and so on shows just how eager he is to enrich the special interests whose bundled campaign contributions bought him. Bundled contributions are legal but working Americans who will have to pay to enrich Obama's sugar daddies nonetheless have the right to know who really runs the Obama Administration.
We reported previously that Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) said openly that the real purpose of "climate legislation" is to enrich Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase, the Green Exchange, and the New York Stock Exchange. Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan Chase each bundled six figures in contributions to Obama. Goldman Sachs bundled $12.6K for Gillibrand, and J.P. Morgan Chase raised $12.8K for her; now it is easy to see why she remembered these firms when she wrote her letter to the Wall Street Journal.
We remind our readers that Goldman Sachs needed billions of dollars to avoid the consequences of bad investment decisions, but continued to pay its partners--maybe the same ones who gave $2300 each, the maximum allowable contribution, to bundle almost a million dollars for Obama--enormous bonuses.
(Excerpt) Read more at israpundit.com ...
These cartoons are designed to appeal to the blue collar middle class workers who make up the Democratic Party's base.
Another reason, groups, companies, unions, organizations, business, etc, shouldn’t[don’t] have ‘rights’.
Actually, the argument is that reducing carbon release by moving away from burning fossil fuels will have the neat side effect of also reducing "real" pollution. This is an accurate statement.
However, the argument is so often poorly worded by pols and media that someone unfamiliar with the science could easily get the impression that the carbon dioxide itself is the pollutant being reduced.
In truth, some of the reporters and politicians probably aren't clear on the science themselves.
Corporations are “individuals”, doncha know.
Of ourse they aren’t. Reporters are ‘generalists’ at best. The knowledgeable “science beat” reporter is a rare critter.
The best? Obviously a seller’s market.
“Actually, the argument is that reducing carbon release by moving away from burning fossil fuels will have the neat side effect of also reducing “real” pollution. This is an accurate statement.”
Fossil fuel power plants are already required to scrub “real” pollutants like sulfur and nitrogen oxides from their emissions. The technology to remove carbon dioxide is largely separate and would be a costly add-on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.