Common Right Wing Lie: Democrats blocked legislation that would have prevented the failure of Fannie and Freddie

by Ben Hoffman

Lie: Republicans tried to regulated Fannie and Freddie but the Democrats blocked legislation from passing.
Fact: In January of 2005, McCain signed on as a cosponsor to a bill (Senate Bill S-190) aimed at reforming the government’s involvement in lending. McCain addressed the Senate on May 26th, 2006 in support of this bill but Bush threatened to veto it, so it never advanced.
Source

In 2007, Barney Frank introduced the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act (H.R. 3915) which would regulate predatory subprime mortgages. The bill passed in the House with all 227 Democrats voting for it.127 Republicans voted against it. The Senate never voted on it and it never became law.
Source

Press Release

Frank also said that the Republican-led Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 and removed the wall between commercial and investment banks, contributed to the financial meltdown.

Republican talking points omit the many factors which set the stage for the present financial crisis — the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (opposed by Congressman Frank), which removed the wall between commercial and investment banks, the failure of the Federal Reserve to use oversight authority which it had been given by Congress, and the Security and Exchange Commission’s decision to allow large financial institutions to “self-regulate” and dramatically increase their risk exposure.
Press Release

Advertisements

28 Comments to “Common Right Wing Lie: Democrats blocked legislation that would have prevented the failure of Fannie and Freddie”

  1. With the man-made global warming argument weakening by the minute, and with the Sheehans and Moore’s of the country now looking like hypocrites for voting a “war President” into office, it seems focus has shifted back to dropping blame for the financial crisis on Bush’s head again? Ok…

    I think the argument you make is on shaky ground. Re: Barney Frank, be sure to know what “reform” he brags about before you go praising him for it. Every “reform” vote that he’s been involved in has been in regards to a bill that is mostly, if not completely, benign – i.e. the bill sounds great, but does nothing. His support for Ron Paul’s latest bill is no different. Is he “lying” then, for supporting and promoting bills that he knows full well have no real teeth or impact on an issue?

    Frank was the guy who also said there was “nothing wrong” with Fan and Fred. Is he a liar for saying that, in your opinion?

    Regardless, trying to brand people as liars is a waste of time as you have to try and prove intent – which you can’t. I can no more prove that Bush really wanted to reform Fannie and Freddie no more than you can prove Baucus was really trying to get his girlfriend hired on her “merits” alone.

    My point is that I don’t think Liberals are in any position right now to be trying to point out character flaws in their opposing party. For one, by what seems to be your definition of a liar, this whole Climategate thing is making many Liberals out to be not only “liars”, but fools, and on a much grander scale. (By my definition, however, these Liberals are simply “wrong”).

    For another, deliberately ignoring Climategate or Afghanistan and circling back to an economic crisis seems like either pure misdirection, or a desperate attempt to get back on some sort of solid “Bush-hating” ground again. Just my opinion…

    • [With the man-made global warming argument weakening by the minute]

      The credibility of some of the scientists may be jeopardized by some of the emails, but that doesn’t mean global warming is not occurring. It’s like in a trial, if a cop lies, that doesn’t make the bank robber any less guilty. What the scientists were doing was planning a strategy to deal with right-wing nut-jobs who don’t value science.

      • Perhaps, but a cop lying doesn’t give the bank robber any more right to rob the bank’s customers, either. Politicians seem to have been using a lie as an excuse for more taxes, and the scientific community should have never become so corrupt or so political.

        Besides, the crux of the issue isn’t whether global warming is happening or not, it is whether it is caused my man and CO2 emissions. Is your position, then, is that it is still man-made and any opinion to the contrary is that of a “right-wing nut-job”?

        And I don’t get the thing about the lies being a strategy to deal with “nut jobs who don’t value science”. Who’s valuing science here, the scientists? Their actions show no value for science at all. And what would their strategy be for, specifically? What could these scientists possibly see these “right-wing nut jobs” as a threat to?

        Anyways, I digress from your original post, but I think trying to brand Republicans as liars as though Democrats are somehow not liars and pillars of truth is ridiculous, especially with this Climategate scandal going on which shows just how far they’ll go to perpetuate a lie.

        We might as well be discussing next which party’s members cheat on their wives more.

      • [Politicians seem to have been using a lie as an excuse for more taxes]

        And what taxes are those?

      • “And what taxes are those?”
        There’s at least two in the US that I know of directly, one in California and one in Colorado.
        The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2008) imposes about a 4% tax to deal ‘directly’ with emissions that cause global warming. Check out their website (http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/Planning-Programs-and-Initiatives/Climate-Protection-Program/Science-of-Climate-Change.aspx) to see how “in bed” they are with the IPCC position on anthropogenic climate change.

        Colorado, specifically Boulder, has a Climate Action Plan Tax (2006), a tax based on total energy usage which marked “the first time in the nation that a municipal government will impose an energy tax on its residents to DIRECTLY COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE.” (emphasis mine). Source is here: http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Environmental%20Affairs/climate%20and%20energy/boulders_carbon_tax.pdf

        These are the ones I know of off-hand. There may be others, but two based on bunk is two too many. I know others are still in “Bill” form rather than law at this point.

        One might say, “Well that’s only two, and they’re in municipalities”, but that’s conveniently dismissive. Consider for one, that the only reason these carbon taxes are municipal and not national so far is not for a lack of trying on behalf of Liberals. They have tried hard and have been blocked by Republicans, surely being labeled “anti-environmentalists”, “Party of No Goosesteppers”, or “nut jobs” for their efforts in doing so. Thankfully, however, they have prevented further taxes being imposed based on a lie. Canada and Australia have not been so lucky.

        But let’s go back to the “liars”. Overall, the push for any sort of tax or carbon policy has been made mostly by Democrats supported full-on by left-wing environmentalist nut-jobs. This push has almost entirely been based upon the notion that we humans are the leading cause of global warming, based almost entirely on the views of Liberal “scientists” who are clearly leftists and also driven more by ego and greed (two traits Liberals normally reserve exclusively for Conservatives and Republicans) than science who are now trying to be marginalized by Liberals.

        This isn’t the credibility of “some scientists”, it’s the credibility of SELECT scientists who were considered and promoted to be experts on global warming by Liberals. Liberals supported them wholeheartedly while they ridiculed any opposing viewpoints as coming from “nut jobs”. It is also the fact that it took “right-wing nut-job” hackers to expose them instead of mainstream journalists who were also clearly drinking the same kool-aid. So to me, there was a lot of “lying by omission” that was going on as well.

        Again, Republicans hide the truth and so do Democrats, and I’m all for exposing lies on either side, but these “who’s a bigger liar” arguments that I see on many left-leaning blogs steering back to the economy or Iraq just seems like an attempt at misdirection to avoid eating crow on the Climategate issue.

      • Since I live in Colorado, I checked out the Boulder tax and it seems that the people there approved the initiative in an election. This is from the document you referenced: “On November 7, 2006, Boulder voters approved Initiative 202, the Climate Action Plan Tax, marking the first time in the nation that a municipal government will impose an energy tax on its residents to directly combat climate change.”

        So what’s your problem? The people of Boulder wanted to do something about pollution. You don’t think they should be able to?

        [This push has almost entirely been based upon the notion that we humans are the leading cause of global warming, based almost entirely on the views of Liberal “scientists” who are clearly leftists]

        While it’s true that scientists are generally liberals, I have yet to hear any credible scientist at all deny the human contribution to global warming. They are always either in the pocket of the oil industry or just plain quacks. The vast majority of scientists agree that man made pollution is affecting the climate and we should do something about it.

      • Respectfully, I think you’re generalizing saying these taxes were implemented to reduce “pollution” when the language and the hype is specifically around CO2 emissions. The issue isn’t about preventing toxic spills or preventing deforestation – it’s about reducing CO2 to specifically reduce temperatures which will consequently reduce global warming.

        More specifically, it is about whether CO2 emissions – the thing that governments are spending billions if not trillions of dollars on to try and limit through taxes and new policies – have any significant impact on global temperatures. These scientists have been fudging the numbers deliberately to show that they do, and credible scientists have been attacked and ridiculed in the meantime by the progressive left for challenging the data. While these scientists were being called quacks and accused of being in the pockets of oil companies, billions of dollars and hours have been wasted on proposed policies and taxes with a SPECIFIC focus on CO2 emissions based on the political slant of the IPCC. Saying all this has simply been about “pollution” is misleading and I think, untrue.

        “I have yet to hear any credible scientist at all deny the human contribution to global warming.” My first question to you would be what makes a scientist “credible” in light of recent events? My second would be what is it you believe they’d actually be denying – that there IS a human contribution? We exhale CO2, so of course we “contribute” to CO2 levels in the atmosphere, but again, what is the extent that CO2 affects both climate and the environment?

        Re: the two taxes I quoted: yes, I do think people should do things about pollution, and I respect and support people voting on worthy environmental initiatives. That’s not my “problem”, as you insinuate.

        My “problem”, using your words, is that it took email hackers and not investigative journalists to find out that these scientists were fudging the numbers behind all the hype. My problem is that honorable scientists were stifled and ridiculed, and called “quacks” all this time for not drinking the Al Gore kool-aid directly from the fire hose.

        My “problem” in the near future, I’m sure, will be all these Liberals who, in the face of the Climategate scandal, are now going to conveniently replace “CO2 emissions” with “pollution” in their vernacular as though that’s what they truly were talking about and fighting against all along.

        Yes, we always need to be considering ways to reduce or eliminate pollution. I don’t think anyone really argues that. But “The vast majority of scientists still believe man-made pollution is changing climate”? I believe guys like David Suzuki are still behind the movement, but who is this ‘vast majority’ that you’re speaking of, specifically?

      • [Respectfully, I think you’re generalizing saying these taxes were implemented to reduce “pollution” when the language and the hype is specifically around CO2 emissions.]

        CO2 is a pollutant when it exists at above natural levels.

        [It’s about reducing CO2 to specifically reduce temperatures which will consequently reduce global warming.]

        No, it’s about reducing unnatural levels of greenhouse gases, which absorb long wave radiation and prevent heat in the troposphere from being released.

        [More specifically, it is about whether CO2 emissions – the thing that governments are spending billions if not trillions of dollars on to try and limit through taxes and new policies – have any significant impact on global temperatures.]

        I doubt those numbers are anywhere close to being accurate. The taxes in Boulder are going towards the development of renewable fuels, of which the community will benefit in the long run because renewable fuels are renewable. They don’t cost anything.

        [credible scientists have been attacked and ridiculed in the meantime by the progressive left for challenging the data.]

        Can you give the name of one of those credible scientists?

        [We exhale CO2, so of course we “contribute” to CO2 levels in the atmosphere, but again, what is the extent that CO2 affects both climate and the environment?]

        While it’s true that we exhale CO2, it’s mainly vehicles and power plants that cause it to be in unnatural concentrations in the atmosphere. Those unnatural concentrations absorb more heat than the atmosphere would normally trap, thus causing warming.

        [My problem is that honorable scientists were stifled and ridiculed, and called “quacks” all this time for not drinking the Al Gore kool-aid directly from the fire hose.]

        Al Gore is trying to promote the science; the science isn’t following Al Gore.

        [but who is this ‘vast majority’ that you’re speaking of, specifically?]

        Fair enough. I’ll create a post with that information. Thanks for the civil discussion. 🙂

      • […it’s mainly vehicles and power plants that cause it to be in unnatural concentrations in the atmosphere. Those unnatural concentrations absorb more heat than the atmosphere would normally trap, thus causing warming.] In theory, perhaps, but the correlation has not been firmly established outside of models and theory. Some scientists I’ve read say that there are too many sub-variables which influence this relationships and the temperature data doesn’t adequately support that conclusion (hence the scandal). At any rate, the relationship has not been clearly established, but the point of all this was not to debate global warming. It was to point out the futility of either side calling the other “liars” about climate change or anything, as though one side was coming from a pure position of truth and holiness and the other, pure lies and evil.

        [I doubt those numbers are anywhere close to accurate.] How much money have these CRU political scientists been given in grant money? How much has been spent on the IPCC studies? How much on conferences, panels, consultants, and how much has been spent on media stating we are the cause of climate change when the proof of that is hardly conclusive? How much has the Copenhagen conference cost so far? I don’t have hard numbers, but I’m guessing it’s a lot.

        [the science isn’t following Al Gore]
        It can be argued that it has been primarily scientists and researchers who are in support of the man-made argument that receive the most funding.

        [Can you give me the name of one of those credible scientists?]
        I’m speaking of the skeptical scientists collectively. Gordon Brown recently called them “Flat Earthers”. Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe said in 2007 that “global warming deniers are now on par with Holocaust deniers”. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/

        Heidi Cullen said that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) should “revoke their ‘Seal of Approval’ for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.”

        Joseph D’Aleo, former chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, spoke of many of his scientific colleagues not attending the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change because it had some “non-consensus” speakers, and that they feared their attendance might affect their employment.” He did not name which ones specifically. I know Dr. Tim Ball has said he’s received death threats, but…

        [Thanks for the civil discussion.] You as well. Civil may not always be the most fun, but I find it the most productive. 🙂

  2. • In 1992, Congress directed HUD to establish multiple quotas requiring mortgage quotes for low-income families.

    • In 1995, the Clinton administration issued a National Homeownership Strategy, loosening Fannie and Freddie’s lending standards and insisting that lenders “work collaboratively to reduce homebuyer downpayment requirements.”

    • The administration complained that in 1989 only 7% of mortgages had less than a 10% downpayment. By 1994, it wanted that raised to 29%.

    • Reduced underwriting standards spread into the entire U.S. mortgage market to those at all income levels.

    • A complete decoupling of home prices from Americans’ income fed the growth of the housing bubble as borrowers made smaller down payments and took on higher debt.

    Fannie and Freddie, private corporations created and sponsored by Congress to lower the cost of mortgage capital, quintupled in size between 1995 and 2004, as they pioneered the practice of selling bundled mortgages in the form of securities.

    The National Association of Home Builders opposed the bill (Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005), as did the National Association of Realtors. Senate Democrats said they supported some form of stricter oversight, but would not support a provision of Hagel’s bill that would limit the size of the company’s portfolios. Negotiations stalled and the bill never made it to the floor.
    Did Democrats block the reforms? More or less. They preferred a pared-down bill, and so did not support Hagel’s.

    • Some of that may be true, but Republicans also did things to block reform.

      I question a few of those events, such as “Fannie and Freddie […] pioneered the practice of selling bundled mortgages in the form of securities.” What’s your source for that?

  3. Mr. Hoffman,

    “In 2007, Barney Frank introduced the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act (H.R. 3915) which would regulate predatory subprime mortgages. The bill passed in the House with all 227 Democrats voting for it.127 Republicans voted against it. The Senate never voted on it and it never became law.”

    Don’t you think that by 2007 it was far to late for Barney Frank to be covering his bleep? Where were Barney, Chris, Maxine, and Barak when it counted?

    You should have worked for Tass and Pravda. You are really good at this.

  4. Mr. Hoffman,

    “doubt those numbers are anywhere close to being accurate. The taxes in Boulder are going towards the development of renewable fuels, of which the community will benefit in the long run because renewable fuels are renewable. They don’t cost anything.”

    I must be in the Twilight Zone. I can’t believe that remark. They don’t cost anything. In the immortal words of John McCanroe ” You cannot be serious.”

    They cost the taxes. Unless someone does a cost benefit analysis that proves in the long run that the costs in fuel saved was greater than the taxes paid, this is probably incredibly foolish.

    • The sun and wind don’t cost anything where I live. Sure, it costs money to convert those energy sources into electricity, but it costs to convert gas and oil into electricity, also.

      Boulder, Colorado is a different kind of town. It has a lot of socialistic policies and functions very well since the people who live there are highly educated and participate at a high level in the government decision making process. Corrupt and inept politicians don’t last long there.

  5. Mr. Hoffman,

    I am curious as to how sincere you are with your green agenda. How green are you personally? My point is that green liberals in general, we conservatives like the phrase ” limousine liberal “, are big in forcing others to make sacrifices at the alter of Global Warming, but in their personal lives they tend to be the biggest hypocrites on the planet. Can you say Al Gore?

    Specifically, what is your carbon foot print? What kind of car do you drive? How do you heat and cool your mansion?

    I, who believe that man made Global Warming is total BS, might be greener than you. I drive a 1999 2 door Hyundai accent, that gets up to 42 MPG. Better yet, I usually walk to work. Are you greener than that?

    • Yep, I work at home. 🙂

      We don’t live in a “mansion,” but our house is pretty big. Right now it’s about 10 degrees outside and the thermostat is set at 62. I use a portable oil filled heater to heat my office to save energy. Also, we produce very little garbage. We recycle everything we can. I drive a Honda Accord, which gets about 30 MPG on the highway.

  6. Mr. Hoffman,

    I have a friend who is in the meteorology field. He is no Conservative. He voted for your guy Obama and hates President Bush. According to him, while he believes the climate is warming, scientifically it can not be proven one way or the other that it is man made.

    He believes that is also the consensus of unbiased experts in the field.

    I do not have a degree in that field. The reason I do not believe in man made global warming is because of all of the previous warming cycles I have read about in history.

    I am not only talking about the medieval warming period circa 1000 AD. Your side likes to use any unusual hurricanes, droughts and floods as evidence. I can’t document past hurricanes, but can document great droughts and floods that occurred before the industrial age.

    • [According to him, while he believes the climate is warming, scientifically it can not be proven one way or the other that it is man made.]

      No, it can indeed be proven that man is contributing to global warming. To what extent may be debatable, but when you increase greenhouse gases, heat is trapped in the atmosphere that would have otherwise escaped. That’s easily proven.

  7. Mr. Hoffman,

    “No, it can indeed be proven that man is contributing to global warming. To what extent may be debatable, but when you increase greenhouse gases, heat is trapped in the atmosphere that would have otherwise escaped. That’s easily proven.”

    You are wrong. If there are no other independent factors, you would be right. Those independent factors are that as CO2 increases, the systems which naturally remove it increase.

    You also have factors such as the variation in the Sun, volcanic discharges, etc. These, I believe are more significant than man caused CO2.

    Then there is the basic fact that as man made green house gases have increased, the climate has not become hotter relative to the increase as the models predicted. In fact much of the climate around the world has done the exact opposite of what the experts on your side predicted.

    Remember the Hurricanes of 2005. They were falsely blamed on Global Warming by your experts. These alarmists then predicted that the following years would be as bad or worse. Guess what? They were wrong again.

    CO2 is only 0.038% of earth’s atmosphere. There are far more common things in the air that affect warming more. Water vapor is 1% of the atmosphere. Some believe that the 1% has more of an effect than the 0.038%.

    Add in the whole Climate Gate scandal and I don’t see how you and your hero Obama can justify wasting trillions on this scam. Then again I do see.

  8. Mr. Hoffman,

    “Scientist Alan says global warming doesn’t exist. Sarah Palin confers. Therefore, the climate scientists must all be wrong.”

    I do not claim the scientist title, do you?

    “when you increase greenhouse gases, heat is trapped in the atmosphere that would have otherwise escaped. That’s easily proven.”

    I am at least as qualified as you to argue the science. My vast research has shown that the oceans have far more influence on the climate than the % increase in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial age.

    You do know that the oceans act as a heat pump circulating heat and cold around the Globe? This by itself is far more important than the green house effect of CO2 increase in the atmosphere. This increase is 90 parts per million. A 30% increase, to be sure, but CO2 is still only about 0.04% of the atmosphere.

    You also of course know that the oceans act as a gigantic Carbon sink, right? You know that a lot of that Carbon becomes Calcium Carbonate, which marine organisms use to build skeletons. Some of this Carbonate is coral reefs, but much of it rains down in to the deep oceans.

    Being the educated man you are, you are no doubt aware that the oceans have absorbed about half of the CO2 we evil humans have produced for the last 2 centuries.

    You certainly know that water vapor is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2. Even NOAA admits to a poor understanding of water vapor’s complex feedback loops. So if we don’t know much about water vapor, but we do know it is more important than CO2 as a green house gas, how can we blame CO2 for Global Warming?

    Go ahead and prove that the rise in CO2 since the industrial age is trapping heat and causing Global Warming.

    • [I do not claim the scientist title, do you?]

      Well, I majored in computer science, but as the saying goes: if it has “science” in the title, it’s not. 🙂 Computer science at CU is an engineering degree, but I did take two classes in meteorology as electives.

      [I am at least as qualified as you to argue the science.]

      Not if you’ve only read articles that dispute global warming. With science, you first have to learn the facts and climate is a complex topic. Scientists still don’t understand a lot about climate and weather.

      [You also of course know that the oceans act as a gigantic Carbon sink, right?]

      That’s true, but the science shows they can absorb just so much. The rest is left in the atmosphere because the system is so out of balance.

      You certainly know that water vapor is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2.

      Yes, and there are some areas around the country where we’ve changed the climate due to irrigation. Phoenix, for example, is now much more humid than it was a few decades ago due to things like watering golf courses.

      [how can we blame CO2 for Global Warming?]

      Only right-wingers are solely blaming CO2 for global warming. There are a lot of factors. There’s cow farts (methane) and the clearing of forests (which would have absorbed CO2). Methane actually has more capacity to store heat than CO2.

      [Go ahead and prove that the rise in CO2 since the industrial age is trapping heat and causing Global Warming.]

      Sure, I’ll get started on my book right now.

      Rather than just read opinion columns by skeptics, why don’t you read about climate change theory first and THEN read opinions by the skeptics. You’ll find that their arguments aren’t honest.

  9. Mr. Hoffman,

    You should be more careful about what you write. You know of course that I will jump on anything you say that gives me an opening. This was a real soft ball.

    “Scientists still don’t understand a lot about climate and weather.”

    You do know that we are not arguing over a purely theoretical disagreement?

    If we follow Al gore’s recommendations we are talking about $trillions in added costs to all of us. Frankly after all of the rest of the left’s stupidity that will bankrupt our country, this will bankrupt it yet again, if that is even possible.

    Be that as it may, you said that scientists still have gaps in their knowledge of weather and climate. Logically how do you justify cap and trade, with all of these gaps that you just admitted to ?

    “there are some areas around the country where we’ve changed the climate due to irrigation.”

    Would it not make more sense to regulate irrigation and sprinkler systems to stop global warming?

    “Only right-wingers are solely blaming CO2 for global warming. There are a lot of factors. There’s cow farts (methane) and the clearing of forests (which would have absorbed CO2). Methane actually has more capacity to store heat than CO2.”

    That is not true. You guys are the one’s spending $trillions to limit CO2. I also think that considering regulating cattle and sheep flatulence makes you guys ridiculous. You of course are aware how much methane termites produce? It’s a lot.

    Also, before cattle and sheep were here 50 million or so buffalo roamed N. America. Their flatulence surely rivaled today’s cattle farts. So how come buffalo flatulence did not cause global warming prior to the 1800s?

    • [You should be more careful about what you write. You know of course that I will jump on anything you say that gives me an opening. This was a real soft ball.]

      Have at it! 🙂

      [If we follow Al gore’s recommendations we are talking about $trillions in added costs to all of us. Frankly after all of the rest of the left’s stupidity that will bankrupt our country, this will bankrupt it yet again, if that is even possible.]

      Again with the talking points.

      [Be that as it may, you said that scientists still have gaps in their knowledge of weather and climate. Logically how do you justify cap and trade, with all of these gaps that you just admitted to ?]

      Although there are gaps in understanding, it’s agreed by scientists all over the world that something needs to be done. Cap and trade is one economically feasible way to reduce emissions.

      [Would it not make more sense to regulate irrigation and sprinkler systems to stop global warming?]

      That’s an ignorant question not worthy of a response. Alan, you have no intellectual curiosity. You’re only reading opinions that support your party’s position on global warming. Read about the science and then we can discuss practical solutions.

      • Mr. Hoffman,

        “That’s an ignorant question not worthy of a response. Alan, you have no intellectual curiosity. You’re only reading opinions that support your party’s position on global warming. Read about the science and then we can discuss practical solutions.”

        Same technique as your boy Weird Al Gore. Don’t debate the facts, because you can’t. Just declare your opponent’s ideas as ignorant, stupid, and invalid. Declare the science as settled.

        I almost feel like Spencer Tracy in the movie ” Inherit the Wind “, when the court kept declaring every argument he made as inadmissible. I think Spencer Tracy, said, ‘ok we’ll play in your ball park then’.

        “Cap and trade is one economically feasible way to reduce emissions.”

        So are you saying that Cap and Trade is economically feasible? The estimates I’ve seen call for $trillions in wealth shifted from Western economies to third world nations. Some of them are our enemies. Also $trillions in added energy costs. $Trillions in subsidies to inefficient, unreliable Green Energy.

        Is questioning you on the economics of Cap and Trade an ignorant question? Is it a NeoCon talking point that you can ignore?

      • [The estimates I’ve seen call for $trillions in wealth shifted from Western economies to third world nations.]

        That’s ridiculous. You don’t even understand how cap and trade works.

  10. Mr. Hoffman,

    “That’s ridiculous. You don’t even understand how cap and trade works.”

    I’ve read a lot about it, but obviously from sources which are not approved by you. Can you explain it to someone who is not up to your academic standards?

    I am particularly interested in your cost estimates, how much Carbon dioxide it eliminates, and the estimated temperature differences between adapting Cap and Trade, and leaving well enough alone.

    I am ready to believe you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: