Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [WoodGas] Re: Fw: What's next for the energy tax

Expand Messages
  • Ask Me
    Yes ,,I did to ... From: ginfizz20 Subject: [WoodGas] Re: Fw: What s next for the energy tax To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday,
    Message 1 of 35 , Jun 30, 2009
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Yes ,,I did to

      --- On Tue, 6/30/09, ginfizz20 <ginfizz20@...> wrote:


      From: ginfizz20 <ginfizz20@...>
      Subject: [WoodGas] Re: Fw: What's next for the energy tax
      To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 10:35 PM








      ---I did-- Senators Kohl and Feingold

      In WoodGas@yahoogroups .com, Mr Ken Koch <n8gan@...> wrote:
      >
      > After a brilliantly illuminating look into our corrupt government agenda...... .Did anyone actually pony-up, sign the petition, and bitch at their Congressmen?
      > We may actually be able to kill this crap in the Senate.
      >
      > I know this was "OT" but it seems to fit here for some reason.
      > Thanks folks,
      > Ken.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ____________ _________ _________ __
      > From: Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm@. ..>
      > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups .com
      > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:09:10 PM
      > Subject: Re: [WoodGas] Fw: What's next for the energy tax
      >
      > Dear Terry
      >   ----- Original Message -----
      >   From: Terry Houston
      >   To: WoodGas@yahoogroups .com
      >   Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:03 PM
      >   Subject: Re: [WoodGas] Fw: What's next for the energy tax
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >   Hello Kevin,
      >   This is why it's so confusing.  In your first sentence, you're saying it is a tax, then you say it's not a tax.
      >
      >   * Sorry about the lack of clarity.
      >
      >   * It is not a tax, because the Government does not get the money. The Middlemen and the generators of Carbon Credits get the money.
      >
      >   Every article I've read on it says it's a tax on business, which, through the magic of  "sh#t rolls down hill" becomes an indirect tax on the consumer.
      >
      >   * If the Government does not get the money, it is not a tax. The Middlemen and their associates are simply calling teh extra charge a tax, so that the blame is shifted to teh Government. It would not go over nearly as well if tehy said: "This is an exstra charge that we have lobbied the Government to put into Law, so that we can make a potful of money at your expense."
      >
      >
      >
      >   It's all a circus act anyway, it doesn't matter if you call it cap and trade, crap and tax, or cap n' crunch, the end result is the same, more jobs will be lost through business closings, and force other businesses to outsource more jobs overseas to India and China (is this how Geitner is convincing the Chinese that we're "good for the money?), and prices are going to go up on everything from toothpaste to titty bars.
      >
      >   * Sadly, you are probably right. However, the Middlemen and teh Elite will do quite well from it.
      >
      >   Truthfully, I could care less what it's called or what anybody wants to call it. Also, the government IS making money by selling the permits. Again, the government and special interests are making money on the backs of the tax paying consumer.
      >
      >   * The Government is making a paltry percentage. The big bucks go to the Middlemen and Elite.
      >
      >   Who really cares what Washington is
      >   calling their new game?
      >   http://www.motherjo nes.com/politics /2009/06/ could-cap- and-trade- cause-another- market-meltdown
      >  
      >
      >   * Very good Article. It shows who will win big time.
      >
      >   http://www.tennesse an.com/article/ 20090602/ MICRO060304/ 90602066/ 1479/MICRO0603/ Cap+and+trade+ will+cripple+ our+economy+ while+Washington +profits
      >
      >   * Another very good article. I especially like their observation " Ironically, the plan will impact the poor, the aging and the unemployed the most." Well, duh... do you think they would lobby for a Bill that impacted on teh Weaqlthy and Elite????
      >
      >
      >   There are many, many people waking up and speaking up on this now. These are just a couple of articles.
      >   BTW, I got my generator mounted on the stand I made and got it running fairly smooth. I still need to remove and soak and clean the carburetor, it's been sitting for over 3 years.
      >   http://groups. yahoo..com/ group/WoodGas/ photos/album/ 952944824/ pic/725864410/ view?picmode= &mode=tn& order=ordinal& start=21& count=20& dir=asc
      >   Now I've got to reconfigure the gasifier.
      >
      >   * Remember the famous saying "As soon as you play their game, you lose."
      >
      >   From this, it flows that "Put that generator on Wood gas and play your own game, so that you will win."
      >
      >   Best wishes,
      >
      >   Kevin
      >
      >
      >   TJ
      >
      >   --- On Tue, 6/30/09, Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm@. ..> wrote:
      >
      >   From: Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm@. ..>
      >   Subject: Re: [WoodGas] Fw: What's next for the energy tax
      >   To: WoodGas@yahoogroups .com
      >   Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 12:27 PM
      >
      >   Dear Terry
      >
      >   A "tax" is a levy imposed by a Legitimate Government to raise money or to influence the Economy and/or social conditions within the Country.
      >
      >   The "Carbon Credit Program" is not a tax, in that the Government does not get the money. Most of it goes to the Carbon Traders. The Government plays a very small role in the ongoing program.
      >
      >   A true "Carbon Tax", for the purpose of discouraging the use of fossil fuels would be "owned and operated" by the Government.
      >
      >   The present "Cap and Trade" system is a cruel joke and a big lie, in that it is impossible for the program to accomplish its purpose, which is to reduce the consumption of fossil carbon.
      >
      >   Say, for example, you originate a program that results in lessened consumption of fossil carbon and sell your Carbon Credits into "The System" , I can buy the Carbon Credits from a Middleman, and burn a quantity of fossil fuel identical to what you saved. The big winner is the Middleman. There is no net benefit to the Environment, or to Climate Change.
      >
      >   The Program could be very successful in accomplishing its purpose if the program would buy Carbon Credits, but not sell them. This approach would not go over at all well with the Middlemen.
      >
      >   This grand scheme will probably be more profitable to the Middleman than was Madoff's Ponzoi Scheme.
      >
      >   Kevin
      >   ----- Original Message -----
      >   From: Terry Houston
      >   To: WoodGas@yahoogroups .com
      >   Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:18 PM
      >   Subject: Re: [WoodGas] Fw: What's next for the energy tax
      >
      >   Hello Dave B..,
      >   I guess that we first have to roughly define "tax" first. There are two types of taxes first of all, "direct" and "indirect".
      >   So a direct tax would be:
      >   >In the colloquial sense, a direct tax is one paid directly to the government by the persons (juristic or natural) on whom it is imposed (often accompanied by a tax return filed by the taxpayer). Examples include some income taxes, some corporate taxes, and transfer taxes such as estate (inheritance) tax and gift tax. < (or property tax)
      >   http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Direct_tax
      >
      >   An indirect tax would be:
      >   >An indirect tax may increase the price of a good so that consumers are actually paying the tax by paying more for the products.[2] Examples would be fuel, liquor, and cigarette taxes. <
      >   http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Indirect_ tax
      >
      >   Now, when the energy companies that burn coal (or tires,or tree stumps or trash,etc... .) has to buy carbon credits, they are going to pass the price increase on to the consumer, so this is a form of indirect tax created through federal legislation. Or, when industry has to buy carbon credits and the extra price of doing business gets passed on to the consumer for food or real goods. These are indirect taxes.
      >   Are you saying that the government is not pulling in any money off of this? Are you also saying that because these trades will be on the stock market (will they?) that this is somehow free enterprise? I, not sure I understand what you are saying. Everything has a name or lable, so what would you call this to make it politically correct, if not a "tax"?
      >   TJ
      >
      >   --- On Tue, 6/30/09, David Burkes <burkes_david@ yahoo.com> wrote:
      >
      >   From: David Burkes <burkes_david@ yahoo.com>
      >   Subject: Re: [WoodGas] Fw: What's next for the energy tax
      >   To: WoodGas@yahoogroups .com
      >   Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 3:15 AM
      >
      >   Ken,
      >   Why are you calling this an energy tax? My understanding is that the higher cost of energy will be due to businesses that don't (for what ever reason) make energy improvements will be able to purchase credits from people and businesses that have made improvements. Taxes are direct levies by government to create revenue. Where is the tax? These credits are traded on an open market.... or am I missing some insidious govm't scheme?
      >   DaveB
      >
      >   --- On Mon, 6/29/09, Mr Ken Koch <n8gan@yahoo. com> wrote:
      >
      >   From: Mr Ken Koch <n8gan@yahoo. com>
      >   Subject: [WoodGas] Fw: What's next for the energy tax
      >   To: "Ken" <n8gan@yahoo. com>
      >   Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:41 PM
      >
      >   Maybe this will help.....
      >
      >   Ken.
      >
      >   Dear Kenneth,
      >
      >   It's not fun to lose. Unfortunately, that's what happened when the U.S. House passed the National Energy Tax on Friday night by a vote of 219-212 (Click here to see how your representative voted). But, losing forces us to take a hard look at where we are, so we can be ready for the next stage of this fight in the U.S. Senate. Today, we face 3 truths:
      >
      >   One - people are now paying attention, they're angry, and they want to act. Two - we need more people, in your state, on our side. Three - the time to begin recruiting is today.
      >
      >   The 219-212 vote was much closer than Speaker Pelosi expected, and 44 Democrats bucked their party and voted no. This is a testament to your efforts, and now we must do it again in the Senate.
      >
      >   Our vehicle is the "Stop the Energy Tax" campaign, which will allow us to reach, educate, and activate more people to make their voices heard in Washington.
      >
      >   Right now over 150,000 people have joined us.. We must now double that for the Senate fight. If every petition signer recruits just one person, we'll hit our goal of 300,000.
      >
      >   Please take a moment and ask one person to sign the Stop the Energy Tax petition at www.americansolutio ns.com/energytax .
      >
      >   Or, if you have any other ideas for how to bring more people to our side, click here.
      >
      >   Because of the close vote in the House, Senators are already nervous about supporting the National Energy Tax. In fact, over the weekend Senator Claire McCaskill, a Democrat from Missouri said: "I hope we fix cap and trade so it doesn't unfairly punish businesses and families in coal dependent states like Missouri."
      >
      >   This shows there are Senators on the fence, and they can be pushed over the edge if enough of us are willing to act. Thank you for recruiting one person today, and we'll be in touch in the coming days to let you know other ways that you can help defeat this massive energy tax.
      >
      >   Thank you.
      >
      >   Dan Varroney
      >
      >   Senior VP and COO
      >
      >   American Solutions
      >
      >   P.S. Don't forget to keep up to date on all the key issues by joining our Facebook Page and following us on Twitter..
      >
      >   Paid for by American Solutions for Winning the Future. Not authorized by any candidate, or candidate committee. Not printed at government expense. www.AmericanSolutio ns.com
      >
      >   To unsubscribe from future mailings, click here: info@americansoluti ons..com?subject= unsubscrib e
      >
      >   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      >  
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------ --------- --------- ------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >



















      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Robin Dumpleton
      America seizing private assets and nationalising them. No don t think so too close to communism. Even if they did it because of national security, it would
      Message 35 of 35 , Jul 8, 2009
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        America seizing private assets and nationalising them.
        No don't think so too close to communism.
        Even if they did it because of national security, it would spell the end of the freemarket

        Robin

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Stuart Perkins
        To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 4:44 PM
        Subject: Re: [WoodGas] Re: Fw: What's next for the energy tax





        If they are smart, they will close their facilities by removing all of
        the equipment.

        On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 14:25 +0000, robert.klinefelter wrote:
        >
        >
        > kathie,
        > conoco/phillips already announced, if cap and trade is past, they will
        > close usa facilities.
        > then i see their facilities seized and nationalized.
        > bob
        >
        > --- In WoodGas@yahoogroups.com, kathie boelkes <kathielee02@...>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > Yep, that sums it up.
        > >
        > > +JMJ+
        > > Kathie
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Toby Seiler <seilertechco@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > From: Toby Seiler <seilertechco@...>
        > > Subject: [WoodGas] Re: Fw: What's next for the energy tax
        > > To: WoodGas@yahoogroups.com
        > > Date: Thursday, July 2, 2009, 7:44 AM
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Kevin, Stewart, Terry and group,
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Heres an interesting piece about the carbon credits (Author; Matt
        > Taibbi).
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Regards, Toby
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > BUBBLE #6 - GLOBAL WARMING
        > >
        > > Fast-Forward to today. It's early June in Washington, D.C. Barack
        > Obama, a popular young politician whose leading private campaign donor
        > was an investment bank called Goldman Sachs - its employees paid some
        > $981,000 to his campaign - sits in the White House. Having seamlessly
        > navigated the political minefield of the bailout era, Goldman is once
        > again back to its old business, scouting out loopholes in a new
        > government-created market with the aid of a new set of alumni
        > occupying key government jobs.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > AS ENVISIONED BY GOLDMAN, THE FIGHT TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING WILL
        > BECOME A "CARBON MARKET" WORTH $1 TRILLION A YEAR.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Gone are Hank Paulson and Neel Kashkari; in their place are Treasury
        > chief of staff Mark Patterson and CFTC chief Gary Gensler, both former
        > Goldmanites. (Gensler was the firm's co-head of finance) And instead
        > of credit derivatives or oil futures or mortgage-backed CDOs, the new
        > game in town, the next bubble, is in carbon credits - a booming
        > trillion-dollar market that barely even exists yet, but will if the
        > Democratic Party that it gave $4,452,585 to in the last election
        > manages to push into existence a groundbreaking new commodities
        > bubble, disguised as an "environmental plan," called cap-and-trade.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > The new carbon-credit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-
        > market casino that's been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious
        > new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices
        > will be government-mandated . Goldman won't even have to rig the game.
        > It will be rigged in advance.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Here's how it works: If the bill passes; there will be limits for
        > coal plants, utilities, natural-gas distributors and numerous other
        > industries on the amount of carbon emissions (a.k.a. greenhouse gases)
        > they can produce per year. If the companies go over their allotment,
        > they will be able to buy "allocations" or credits from other companies
        > that have managed to produce fewer emissions. President Obama
        > conservatively estimates that about $646 billions worth of carbon
        > credits will be auctioned in the first seven years; one of his top
        > economic aides speculates that the real number might be twice or even
        > three times that amount.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > The feature of this plan that has special appeal to speculators is
        > that the "cap" on carbon will be continually lowered by the
        > government, which means that carbon credits will become more and more
        > scarce with each passing year. Which means that this is a brand-new
        > commodities market where the main commodity to be traded is guaranteed
        > to rise in price over time. The volume of this new market will be
        > upwards of a trillion dollars annually; for comparison's sake, the
        > annual combined revenues of an electricity suppliers in the U.S. total
        > $320 billion.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Goldman wants this bill. The plan is (1) to get in on the ground
        > floor of paradigm-shifting legislation, (2) make sure that they're the
        > profit-making slice of that paradigm and (3) make sure the slice is a
        > big slice. Goldman started pushing hard for cap-and-trade long ago,
        > but things really ramped up last year when the firm spent $3.5 million
        > to lobby climate issues. (One of their lobbyists at the time was none
        > other than Patterson, now Treasury chief of staff.) Back in 2005, when
        > Hank Paulson was chief of Goldman, he personally helped author the
        > bank's environmental policy, a document that contains some surprising
        > elements for a firm that in all other areas has been consistently
        > opposed to any sort of government regulation. Paulson's report argued
        > that "voluntary action alone cannot solve the climate-change problem."
        > A few years later, the bank's carbon chief, Ken Newcombe, insisted
        > that cap-and-trade alone won't be enough to fix the climate problem
        > and
        > >
        > > called for further public investments in research and development.
        > Which is convenient, considering that 'Goldman made early investments
        > in wind power (it bought a subsidiary called Horizon Wind Energy),
        > renewable diesel (it is an investor in a firm called Changing World
        > Technologies) and solar power (it partnered with BP Solar), exactly
        > the kind of deals that will prosper if the government forces energy
        > producers to use cleaner energy. As Paulson said at the time, "We're
        > not making those investments to lose money."
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > The bank owns a 10 percent stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange,
        > where the carbon credits will be traded. Moreover, Goldman owns a
        > minority stake in Blue Source LLC, a Utah-based firm that sells carbon
        > credits of the type that will be in great demand if the bill passes.
        > Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, who is intimately involved with the
        > planning of cap-and-trade, started up a company called Generation
        > Investment Management with three former bigwigs from Goldman Sachs
        > Asset Management, David Blood, Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris. Their
        > business? Investing in carbon offsets. There's also a $500 million
        > Green Growth Fund set up by a Goldmanite to invest in green-tech ...
        > the list goes on and on. Goldman is ahead of the headlines again, just
        > waiting for someone to make it rain in the right spot. Will this
        > market be bigger than the energy-futures market?
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > "Oh, it'll dwarf it," says a former staffer on the House energy
        > committee.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Well, you might say, who cares? If cap-and-trade succeeds, won't we
        > all be saved from the catastrophe of global warming? Maybe - but
        > cap-and-trade, as envisioned by Goldman, is really just a carbon tax
        > structured so that private interests collect the revenues. Instead of
        > simply imposing a fixed government levy on carbon pollution and
        > forcing unclean energy producers to pay for the mess they make,
        > cap-and trade will allow a small tribe of greedy-as-hell Wall Street
        > swine to turn yet another commodities market into a private
        > tax-collection scheme. This is worse than the bailout: It allows the
        > bank to seize taxpayer money before it's even collected.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > "If it's going to be a tax, I would prefer that Washington set the
        > tax and collect it," says Michael Masters, the hedge fund director who
        > spoke out against oil-futures speculation. "But we're saying that Wall
        > Street can set the tax, and Wall Street can collect the tax. That's
        > the last thing in the world I want. It's just asinine."
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Cap-and-trade is going to happen. Or, if it doesn't, something like
        > it will. The moral is the same as for all the other bubbles that
        > Goldman helped create, from 1929 to 2009. In almost every case, the
        > very same bank that behaved recklessly for years, weighing down the
        > system with toxic loans and predatory debt, and accomplishing nothing
        > but massive bonuses for a few bosses, has been rewarded with mountains
        > of virtually free money and government guarantees - while the actual
        > victims in this mess, ordinary taxpayers, are the ones paying for it.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > It's not always easy to accept the reality of what we now routinely
        > allow these people to get away with; there's a kind of collective
        > denial that kicks in when a country goes through what America has gone
        > through lately, when a people lose as much prestige and status as we
        > have in the past few years. You can't really register the fact that
        > you're no longer a citizen of a thriving first-world democracy, that
        > you're no longer above getting robbed in broad daylight, because like
        > an amputee, you can still sort of feel things that are no longer
        > there.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > But this is it. This is the world we live in now. And in this world,
        > some of us have to play by the rules, while others get a note from the
        > principal excusing them from homework till the end of time, plus 10
        > billion free dollars in a paper bag to buy lunch. It's a gangster
        > state, running on gangster economics, and even prices can't be trusted
        > anymore; there are hidden taxes in every buck you pay. And maybe we
        > can't stop it, but we should at least know where it's all going.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.