Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
and it won’t do anything to reduce global warming.
UN panel urges higher taxes on emissions, transport to fight climate change
Climate funding may need taxes on flight tickets, forex deals: U.N. report
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/article870689.ece?homepage=true
No way, Jose! FUBO!!
Looking forward to next week.....Beck’s going to blow Soros out of the water!
That's a joke, right?
A German with a first name of the Italian word for "Bye!"
Vice Chairman? I should say so. $100B out to support quite a few vices.
"Koch"? Do you know how that's pronounced?
"Weser" isn't exactly "Wetter", but it's so close ya gotta be thinkin:
German Bank Chairman of Vice "Goodbye C*** Wetter"!
Is he why Bernanke is a monetary slut?
I am not above making fun of peoples' names!
If he pledges to drop the U.S. out of the U.N., and to form a new organization with the UK, Australia, Canada, and Israel...
JOHN BOLTON IN 2012!!!
$100B is chump change to Georgie Soros. If he is so dang worried about “the climate”, why don’t he pick up the tab?
Americans should be worried by the Commission’s recommendations: for instance, that some UN activities be funded through taxes on foreign-exchange transactions and multinational corporations. Economist James Tobin estimates that a 0.5 per cent tax on foreign-exchange transactions would raise $1.5 trillion annually — nearly equivalent to the U.S. federal budget.
——————International Man of Mystery: Who is Maurice Strong? http://iresist.com/cbg/strong.html
Posted by Fedora
Good luck with that here.
All the Democrats cap n trade, carbon tax, spread the wealth around the candidates went down to defeat. That can’t have escaped the notice of the John McCains and Lindsay Grahams in Washington on our side.
We’re sick and tired of having new taxes imposed on us in the name of the climate change scam. What is it about no new taxes the Left doesn’t understand?
The UN can go take a hike!
In other words, the warmists are admitting that the alleged warming cannot ever be stopped or reversed.
All we can do is, for example, build a ring of dikes like the Netherlands, around every coastal region on the globe, to protect them from rising sea levels. That's a lot of shovel-ready union jobs. Yeah, right.
When Ban Ki Moon took charge at the UN one of the first things he did was appoint Alicia Barcena, a Mexican environmentalist to be his head of management. She is an associate of Maurice Strong, an aging wealthy Canadian eco-nut [with an even nuttier wife]. Barcena was involved in the Rio Summit and in the Earth Council Alliance and later landed jobs at the UNEP & UNDP... in her more recent position she was involved managerially in an audit of UN funds to North Korea.
[see related source "At the United Nations, the Curious Career of Maurice Strong," fox news
Maurice Strong and his stepdaughter were involved with Tongsun Park, a lobbyist for Saddam Hussein and a person involved with a trust fund dedicated to North Korea using taxayers' funds from the US Dept of Energy and Canadian gvenment's CIDA.
Strong heads a company that has ownership of a chunk of China's coal and gas fields- and these will not be subject to these environmental whacko laws his buddies in the UN push, so he has much to gain.
JULY 2007 : (STILL NO INQUIRY , BUT U.S. HAS FOUND EVIDENCE THAT IN ADDITION TO TRANSFERRING CASH TO THE N KOREAN REGIME OF KIM IL, THE UNDP ALSO TRANSFERRED DUAL-USE TECHNOLOGY --UNDP SCANDAL aka CASH-FOR-KIM SCANDAL, WEAPONS PROLIFERATION, MAURICE STRONG) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...-----U.N. High Tech for Kim - Add Burma to the list of scandals. OpinionJournal.com ^ | July 20, 2007 | Editorial Staff
You have to cut up 30% due to fiat inflationary policy
So really it’s only 70B what’s that among friends.
They are moving on the auction of Carbon credits before the Fraud starts to become a litigation target. sort of a take the money and run scam..
But a wiki piece might be enlightening:
Summers’ role in the deregulation of derivatives contracts
On May 7, 1998, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) issued a Concept Release soliciting input from regulators, academics, and practitioners to determine “how best to maintain adequate regulatory safeguards without impairing the ability of the OTC (Over-the-counter) derivatives market to grow and the ability of U.S. entities to remain competitive in the global financial marketplace.” [20] On July 30, 1998, then-Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Summers testified before congress that “the parties to these kinds of contract are largely sophisticated financial institutions that would appear to be eminently capable of protecting themselves from fraud and counterparty insolvencies.” (SOROS?) Summers, like Greenspan and Rubin who also opposed the concept release, offered no proof that the contracts would not be misused by financial institutions. Instead, Summers stated that “to date there has been no clear evidence of a need for additional regulation of the institutional OTC derivatives market, and we would submit that proponents of such regulation must bear the burden of demonstrating that need.” [21] This argument suggests that the default position in the disagreement was that Summers, Greenspan, and Rubin were right, and that anyone (i.e., Brooksley Born) who disagreed with them bore the burden of proving their position. In fact, subsequent events have proven that Summers, Rubin, and Greenspan misjudged the dangers posed by derivatives contracts.
The lack of regulation that allowed A.I.G. to sell hundreds of billions of dollars in credit default swaps on mortgage-backed securities was a direct result of efforts by the Treasury (first under Rubin and then under Summers), the Federal Reserve (under Greenspan), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (under Arthur Levitt) to deregulate the derivatives markets. The first response to the CFTC Concept Release was issued as a joint statement from Rubin, Greenspan, and Levitt who stated that they “have grave concerns about this action and its possible consequences.” [22] Levitt and Greenspan have admitted that their views on this issue were mistaken. Levitt told WGBH in Boston that “I could have done much better. I could have made a difference.” Greenspan told a congressional hearing that “I found a flaw ... in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works.” [23] [24] When George Stephanopoulos asked Summers about the financial crisis in an ABC interview on March 15, 2009, Summers replied that “there are a lot of terrible things that have happened in the last eighteen months, but what’s happened at A.I.G. ... the way it was not regulated, the way no one was watching ... is outrageous.”
At the 2005 Federal Reserve conference in Jackson Hole, Raghuram Rajan presented a paper called “Has Financial Development Made the World Riskier?” Rajan pointed to a number of potential problems with the financial developments of the past thirty years. [25] The problems that Rajan considers include skewed incentives of managers, herding behavior among traders, investment bankers, and hedge fund operators who suffer withdrawals if they under-perform the market. Rajan also discusses (on pp. 337–40) the problems associated with firms that “goose up returns” by taking risky positions that yield a “positive carry.” This is how the infamous Joseph J. Cassano impressed his superiors at A.I.G. for a decade while sowing the destruction of the firm. [26] During the boom years of the housing market, the credit default swap contracts that A.I.G. Financial Products sold provided a stream of premium payments to the company with no expense stream. That’s an example of what Rajan calls “goosing up returns” with latent risk. Rajan asks (on page 388) “If firms today implicitly are selling various kinds of default insurance to goose up returns, what happens if catastrophe strikes?” This is a fair question.
They are a siphon for taxdollars, and produce NOTHING of value, whatsoever.
You’re going to pay more so that Al Gore and George Soros can get even richer. :)
All for reasons they can’t prove or even demonstrate.
big money is like a magnet for bad ideas.
There's too much booty in the idea of world government for it to be anything but inevitable, imho.
