Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jrhana who wrote (10257)	6/30/2009 2:16:45 PM
From: Bearcatbob	Respond to of 86356

<I prefer a gasoline tax> So would I. But unfortunately that would be too easy to understand and there would be a lot of opposition. They want to tax us to death without anyone knowing where it came from. Hence the complications. <which is oil dependence, which I think is more urgent than climate change> Do you think these guys care anything about oil dependence? El Presidente has a standing promise only to raise taxes on the top 2%. That raving lie has to be walked away from. His press secretary was laughed at recently when questioned about this. The Obama campaign lies are coming home to roost. hotair.com

To: jrhana who wrote (10257)	6/30/2009 5:30:19 PM
From: RetiredNow	Respond to of 86356

I think they do. There are some major provisions in that climate bill that address oil dependence, like the $20B in R&D for electric vehicles. However, I think it doesn't go far enough. I would really have preferred a comprehensive oil independence plan as a higher priority than a climate change plan. But good luck getting the GOP to admit that we need an oil independence plan and good luck getting the Dems to prioritize that over climate change. Sigh. We live with less than optimal leaders on both sides of the aisle.