So, let me see if I get this right. Even non-LDS get to use my church to further
their political agenda. What a country!
(From FactCheck.org)Leading Republicans are claiming that President
Obama's proposal to curb greenhouse gas emissions would cost households as much
as $3,100 per year. The Republican National Committee calls it a "massive
national energy tax." But the $3,100 figure is a misrepresentation of both
Obama's proposal and the study from which the number is derived.Republicans say they base their figure on a study from the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. But one of the authors says that the GOP's use of the
study is "simplistic and misleading" and that it ignores key provisions designed
to cushion the impact on consumers. The author puts the true added cost of a
cap-and-trade system at closer to $800 a year.
Cap-and-trade is the only way we'll ever pay off the $100,000 per person
spending increases we recently have adopted. Here's how it works. Energy
prices skyrocket. That leads to out-of-control inflation because higher energy
prices mean everything costs more. Thus, a $100,000 debt tomorrow could be as
easy to handle as a $10,000 debt today. The investors who financed the $100,000
debt will take a beating, but who cares about the Chinese, right?
Re:Dave; God's kingdom is not the Earth, this is only one of his creations. My
point was simple, in that, there is God's agenda, and then there is Man's
agenda. The two rarely, coincide.
These comments get moderated but was this self serving article moderated?
Actually, the Rock is RIGHT, as are Derek Monson and several others. The
original letter writer, John Kateel, is attempting a huge, unworkable leap of
logic connecting Utahs majority religion with support for a blatant abuse of
governmental authority in the form of cap and trade. And, judging by the name
of his business, it appears that Kateel is attempting to convince us for his own
monetary gain. If Brigham Young and other early prophets were alive today, my
guess is that theyd be appalled at this government assault on liberty.
What I continually find disturbing is not the desire to protect our environment.
I firmly belief that curbing pollution such as mercury, particulate emissions,
etc will help society and cut down on the cost to our health and well being.
However, believing that CO2 should be part of that and should be regulated shows
not only a lack of common sense but a misunderstanding of the big picture. Plants like CO2. Recent studies show that with higher CO2 amounts, the
earth actually increased its biomass by 6%. CO2 only forms a relatively small
part of our atmosphere. It's effect hasn't been shown as a direct cause of
global warming, despite millions of dollars in research. Many scientists are
looking at other causes of warming and now ceased warming in the past 8 years.
Even scientists on the IPCC panel have come out against the released study
saying they were pigeonholed into one small area and they do not agree with the
overall result. Why do we want to spend so much money on something
that we haven't even determined is a root cause and may not cause that much
As usualthe right-wing in their ignorance, refuses to believe anything is
wrong with our environment.So what?The liberals are
taking action to correct the problems with or without them.
AS Usual,Anonymous has nothing of value to contribute, but
name-calling,And his intolerance and hate for anyone who has views
right of his.
As a liberal, I always focus on leaving the campground a tad nicer than how I
found it.And I couldn't care less if any conservative would slam me with a
"tree-hugger" or "enviro-wacko" moniker.
The cap and trade scam is just more of this 'got to do it now' power grab. It
will just take more of my hard earned money away from my providing a living for
my family. I'm sure that the church would want me to keep more of what I earn
and use it for good purposes, purposes that I decide are right not what Obama
and the socialists in charge think is right and good.The church has always
taught moderation in ALL things, I think this would apply to this global warming
scam. be good stewards of the earth, but don't worship said earth.
Also, what does cap-and-trade have to do with pollution? The main purpose of
c-a-t is to reduce carbon emissions, not necessarily air and water particulates
that damage people's bodies.
"The collectivism of the 19th-century prophets would be derided as socialism
today."Actually, several different apostles of the LDS Church (e.g.
David O. McKay, Marion G. Romney, and Ezra Taft Benson) have give many addresses
on the difference between socialism/communism and the "collectivism" or United
Order of the Church. Search for "Socialism and the United Order Compared" by
Cosmo, We're not building God's kingdom - we're destroying it. The Earth is
God's artwork and look what we're doing to it. Don't be so sanctimonious.
The Rock is a crock!Another freaky right-winger gone beserk.
It is rather astounding when you read comments on an article like this to see
how many avowedly devout LDS people are willing to throw their actual religious
heritage, with its heavy communitarianism, completely overboard when they sense
it conflicts with their modern-day right-wing greedy notions of political
capitalism. They really do prefer their possessions and the things of this
world to any of the spiritual truths of their religious forefathers. The
Sutherland Institute really ought to be the Hypocrites Institute.
Yes, let's drop the income tax and adopt the energy tax.That way
rich and poor are all taxed fairly!Under the current system the poor
pay no tax.
John, is prostituting religion, for his own self interest. It is an old story,
in human history.Anyone that falls for this scam, should evaluate, who's
kingdom they are helping to build, God's, ora man, that seeks to profit
from larger government.
That's right, Neocons.Do nothing.As always.LOL!
The Rock is wrong. Global disruptive weather patterns caused by CO2 are no
longer in dispute, except by those too blind, lazy, or invested in oil to see
the truth. Read Thomas Friedman's book, 'Hot, Flat and Crowded' for a
well-researched and candid approach to world problems such as global climate
disruption, poverty, and renewable energy systems. There are solutions to all
these problems, but it will take awareness and a willingness to change the way
we do things before things can get better.
"John Kateel of North Salt Lake works with J.M. Alexander Eco Friendly
Products."It would appear that Mr. Kateel has a conflict of
interest. He could stand to profit from cap and trade.The LDS
united order was based on personal liberty, not government force.Global Warming is a crock! Watch a movie called "The Great Global Warming
Swindle" It is on Google Videos and is 75 minutes long. Produced in England,
it should open a lot of eyes. Cap and trade is the biggest single tax ever
proposed and it is a response to a problems that does not exist.
Cap and tax (or ration and tax, RAT for short)is based upon a false premise, and
that is that CO2 is a terrible pollution, and must go. The idea is that the new
tax will help to kill fossil fuel use. The early prophets and saints never for
once ever thought for a minute that burning fossil fuels would kill the earth.
Just the opposite, the Saints were always taught that Earth's resources were God
given, and were to be used with prudence and principles of frugality and virtue,
and that every man on earth had the right to use earth's resources for his
fulfillment and happiness (within the bounds of righteous principles). It is an
unrighteous agenda that says C02 is a pollutant and will kill the earth. It
purely, and simply is not true, and the spirit of that belief comes from none
other than Master Mahan himself. This agenda, if followed, to the extent to
limit mankind and his prosperity will ultimately lead to ruin.
I am amazed at the twisting, turning and forceful cramming of early Mormon
doctrine and Utah history into this neat little box supporting "Obama's
cap-and-trade centered environmental policy" and stating that it is "well in
line with the values of the pioneering founders of the great state of Utah."Mr. Kateel better go back and re-study Mormon and Utah history. Cap and
Trade goes against the spirit of early Utah entrepreneurship and certainly does
not fit into the early Mormon concept of a Zion society.Mr. Kateel,
stop twisting history to get people to agree to a concept foreign to early
Mormon leaders and etxremely harmful to the present and future economy.
The writer forgot one thing and that's choice. The past prophets honored the
individual's choice and did compell anyone to do anything.
Collective living as organized by Joseph and Brigham had one thing that
"Obama-ism" does not. The free choice to belong or not belong. No one was ever
forced to live the United Order. It was voluntary. Where is the
opportunity to not participate in the president's plans if one chooses?
I've yet to figure out just what it is that conservatives aim to conserve?All they do is obsess about one ideology after another.And that's it!
JS and BY both did their best to get the Saints to cooperate economically, but
that was the one thing they would NOT do. Thus the downfall of Zion in Missouri
and the end of the United Orders in Utah. BY said this was the saddest thing in
his whole life, that he couldn't get the Saints to stop the greed.
"I love the idea of taxing energy use, since it has a societal cost."Energy use also has huge societal benefits. Everything we now take for granted
(internet, increasing life expectancy, leisure time, abundant food, shelter,
clothing, and water, standard of living, and environmental quality) is possible
only because we have abundant, cheap, and reliable sources of energy. Take that
away and we're back to a subsistence life style with no time and resources for
such things as ecotourism.
To Check your sources@8:38 am--If you invested more time learning
about our (Sutherland Institute's) positions on energy and the environment, and
less time hatching conspiracy theories about who our donors are, you would know
that we are not against a clean energy economy. You would find out that we think
that all energy sources are needed, particularly in the near future, to meet the
basic needs of a growing state population and to provide opportunities for
prosperity and happiness to our children.Further, you would learn
that we think that clean air, clean water, and a healthy respect for the
environment are crucial to Utah's well-being. You would also discover that we
consider the free market and private initiative to be the best primary ways to
bring about these necessities.Lastly, you would learn that we think
that if government becomes the primary vehicle to deliver these outcomes, it
will not only fail but will unnecessarily burden hard-working families and
individuals in Utah, and take away some of the very liberties that make this
state such a wonderful place to live.But as they say, ignorance is
Personally... I have no problem with conservation. I think it's the right thing
to do (always have). It's in line with my personal philosophy and I think with
Utah's founders.What I DO have a problem with is the agenda to turn
control over to international power broakers (who don't necesarrily have Utah or
the United States interests at heart).Washington DC is too out of
control and too distant from me and my values to trust to know my concerns and
to do things in a way that takes local concerns into account. How out of
control and out-of-touch do you think some UN-ELECTED power-group in the Hague
or some cloistered haven in Europe or elsewhere will be???-Do they
know the problems and concerns Utahns have? (I don't think so).-Do they
CARE if they destry the US Economy? (I don't think so).-Do they KNOW what
will SOLVE Global Warming? (I don't think so).-Will they be_able to
balance the needs of impoverished_people, developing economies AND Free
societies (like ours) as well_as_more_Socialist_systems
If_so_they_are_more_omniscient_than_God_himself.-Are they just out to
control and manipulate other nations? (YES)!
John, I would respectfully argue that you're understanding and interpretation of
the founding prophets is flawed. Those prophets would not be socialists today,
because they taught and expected that people's private actions should be the
primary vehicle to care for our communities, not the coercive hand of
government.For example, you write:"Where the founding
prophets and Obama converge is in realizing that externalities like pollution do
have cost that is borne by the community without compensation. They both agree
that the producer does have the right to a profit, yet this profit must not come
at the uncompensated expense of the community as a whole."The big
difference, however, is that the founding prophets believed in the idea of
"teach[ing] the people correct principles and they govern themselves"
(Joseph Smith), whereas Obama believes in using the state to forcibly teach and
govern the people. The latter is socialism, and leads to
cap-and-trade, a degradation of the reasoning capacity and moral agency of men
and women, and a cynical view of human freedom. The former is wisdom, and leads
to greater respect for freedom, human dignity, and the environment. They are
There ain't no problem with the climate.There also ain't no problem with
breathin' in that orange-brown air ever day. In-out. In-out.... deeper this
time, in-out, in-out.This is just more of them liberal tricks
liberal like to play on us stupid neocons... er I mean, us patriots.
The writer is mistaken. He conveniently left out the overarching value of
individual liberty and overlooked Joseph Smith's and Brigham Young's numerous
libertarian writings. They advocated LESS government intervention, not more.Equating the communal actions of a small religious society with those of
the Federal government is a nonsequitor. They employ different values, have
different goals, have different outcomes, and are based on conflicting political
ideologies (religion-based liberty versus fascism). There is no logical
I love the idea of taxing energy use, since it has a societal cost. Where I
differ with the president is I think we should scrap the current dysfunctional
tax system in favor of an energy tax. Overall taxation needs to be lower, but
given that as a parameter, a carbon tax would be preferable to an income tax.
Talk about putting a square peg in a round hole. I've heard everything now. The
wide streets of SLC testify to the advance thinking of the pioneers. We would
have Atomic power if BY or JS were here, not the windmills or solar, both of
which have to be subsidized to exist, neither of which will be cost effective
nor sustainable. Dream on!
I think you are a bit naive...The big energy companies a are playing
BOTH sides of the field. They will profit from oil OR alternate energy.It's the consumer that gets stiffed IN EVERY CASE.Fact is,
they profit MORE from alternate energies.
Please look at who finances the Heritage Foundation, Heartland Institute,
Sutherland Institute and others who are bending the facts and figures to scare
everyone with them. That is, if you can find their contributors. On their web
sites, they won't say... it is scary to think that for some reason, there are
people out there who hide behind these organizations and try to create panic.
Their numbers are completely skewed; my question is why they are so against a
clean energy economy like this will create. Big oil? Probably.
Cont. "Because almost every industry and American uses some form of fossil
fuel-based energy, the impact of an energy tax of this level will be disastrous
to the American economy. For example, The Heritage Foundations Center for Data
Analysis has found that by 2035 the Waxman-Markey bill will have the following
economic impact:Reduce aggregate Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by
$9.6 trillionDestroy up to 2.5 million jobs in some yearsRaise
electric rates 90%, gasoline prices by 74%, and natural gas prices by 55% after
adjusting for inflationRaise a typical familys average annual energy bill
by $1,500With unemployment at 8.9%, now is not the time to subject our
economy and American families to such a burdensome tax. The impact of
Waxman-Markey on the next generation of families is thousands of dollars per
year in higher energy costs, over $116,600 of additional federal debt (above and
beyond the unconscionable increases already scheduled), a weaker economy, and
more unemployment. And all for a change in world temperature that might not be
noticeable." - Heritage Foundation
Mr. Obama's energy plan is a massive tax that will wreak havoc on the
economy."President Barack Obama described the plan best when he said
[u]nder my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would
necessarily skyrocket. And skyrocket they will. In total, a typical family of
four will see its energy costs rise by over $22,800 from 2012-2035. But it gets
worse. When energy costs increase, the costs of all goods and services increase.
Businesses have to pay a higher overhead, and they pass that on to consumers.
Manufacturers, an energy-intensive industry, will have to pay more to produce
their products, so the price of their products will rise to reflect the higher
costs of production." "The $22,800 does not include this higher cost
of living, nor does it include the higher expenditure for such things as more
energy efficient cars and appliances or the disutility of driving smaller, less
safe vehicles or the discomfort of using less heating and cooling." - Heritage
Oh geeze... Tne enviro wackos are out in force today. THey'll do anything to
justify a socialistic world. I think ALL of our founders believed
in freedom first, not control...
Wow, that's a huge leap of logic in the last paragraph. Businesses have been
paying taxes of all types for decades, but according to the author their profits
have left society "uncompensated".