Ready to license your home? Are these people serious?

**Sstashmoo** · December-31-09, 03:35 PM

A License Required for your house

""Thinking about selling your house – A look at H.R. 2454 [[Cap and trade bill) This is unbelievable!

Only the beginning from this administration! Home owners take note & tell your friends and relatives who are home owners!

Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. H.R. 2454, the “Cap & Trade” bill passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced.

The Congressional Budget Office [[supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year.
No one is excluded.""

http://www.truthnews.us/?p=3341

I checked snopes and a few others, this appears to be factual, but very hard to believe.

**ghettopalmetto** · December-31-09, 03:44 PM

Do you shit yourself at every fanatical right-wing blog post you read, or just some of them? Do you even TRY to understand the content of anything you read, or are you content to run screaming into the hills at the mention of anything that doesn't cut taxes?

What's it like to live every waking moment of your life in fear of the Big Bad Gubment who's coming to take all your shit? Doesn't it prevent you from being a productive member of society?

Go change your diaper. Yawn.

NEXT TIME, LOOK HARDER:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/captrade.asp

P.S. The Administration is not part of the House of Representatives.

Retroit · December-31-09, 04:39 PM

Yeah, Sstashmoo, why would anyone expect the government to raise our taxes when they can just continue to borrow from the Chinese?

[[sarcasm)

**Sstashmoo** · December-31-09, 06:01 PM

Ghetto,

Big fucking deal you found it on snopes, I'll bet that sent you to the washroom. I looked I didn't see it as I posted. I also said it was hard to believe, nowhere do I sign off on it as credible. Fuckinay lighten up.

**ghettopalmetto** · December-31-09, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Ghetto,

Big fucking deal you found it on snopes, I'll bet that sent you to the washroom. I looked I didn't see it as I posted. I also said it was hard to believe, nowhere do I sign off on it as credible. Fuckinay lighten up.

Shouldn't you be posting your link onto other right-wing blogs, so they can continue the circle-jerk?

If you repeat a lie enough times, it becomes truth, right?

**Jimaz** · December-31-09, 08:00 PM

I really wish that the people who busy themselves initially creating these lies would just cut it out. The problem seems to have grown worse lately. Why can't they understand that they're only doing their own causes more harm than good?

They're trying to win each and every minor battle by any means necessary at the expense of losing the overall war. Well, I guess if liars try so hard to lose, who am I to complain? It just seems such a freakishly counterproductive strategy.

**Sstashmoo** · December-31-09, 08:57 PM

Quote: "The problem seems to have grown worse lately."

It really has. There is so much coming through the pipe and some that is credible is as ridiculous as what isn't. Maybe that is the strategy.. Shotgunning information to the point where nobody takes any with much concern.

ziggyselbin · December-31-09, 10:19 PM

Cap and trade is a bad deal. I have a very smart mostly liberal minded friend and the way he described it to me is it is as if the gov't told us all to elevate ourselves ten feet in the air and hover...well none of us can do that so we will just have to pay whatever fine there is because we can not hover as human beings.

Once people realize the cost it will die quickly.

**oladub** · December-31-09, 10:33 PM

I've been trying to figure out what the 1437 page present version of the middle-class cap and trade tax requires of existing homeowners. I haven't found any evidence that, at least initially, there is a requirement for used homeowners to submit to an energy audit. On the other hand, I haven't found any specific wording that rules out such a search and required upgrades in the future. For instance, the Secretary [[of Energy?) may at his discretion, up the residential energy standards of a national energy code. It doesn't specify only on new housing. Snopes must have skipped over that. The national energy code would have to be adopted by states if they wanted goodies from the federal government. There would be no federal energy audits, as Snopes says, but states would have to provide energy audits to get their federal goodies. Again, not for used houses - at least initially. Also, techniques will be developed to measure single family homes' energy efficiency. It does not say that this will only be to measure new homes. In fact, one fedeeral measurement tool will be to review what portion of new homes and 'substantially remodeled homes' met the proposed federal energy code. It did not define 'substantially remodeled' or explain why remodeled homes are measured the same as new homes.

It is useless to make predictions until the Senate wades into this pile of garbage. I would assume that this is an incremental program as many government programs tend to be but maybe this will be the exception

. At worst, this will be another Obama corporatist scheme like his health care program that will vastly expand bureaucracies, regulations, and costs to the benefit of certain corporations. Building material suppliers should do pretty well. Limited income home buyers will be priced out of more housing but hey - that can be fixed with another government program and Fannie/Freddie now have infinite cost overruns guaranteed by the Obama Administration [[screw Congress if it even cares) until 2012.

**ghettopalmetto** · January-01-10, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "The problem seems to have grown worse lately."

It really has. There is so much coming through the pipe and some that is credible is as ridiculous as what isn't. Maybe that is the strategy.. Shotgunning information to the point where nobody takes any with much concern.

The problem has only grown worse because people like YOU automatically believe every bullshit lie that agrees with their ideology, and then post it all over the Internet. Whatever happened to "trust, but verify"? Use your damn brain.

Speaking of using one's damn brain, now we have ziggyselbin and oladub who are too lazy to even read the Snopes article, which makes it very clear that there is NO SUCH THING as a "middle class cap-and-trade tax".

You guys can piss and moan about liberals and the Democratic party, but as long as you propagate sheep politics, the "conservative" movement will just become a bigger joke than it already is. Come to the table when you're interested in intelligent, constructive debate.

**Sstashmoo** · January-01-10, 01:31 PM

Ghetto, Your hateful ignorant rhetoric really warrants no response.

Quote:
"Do you shit yourself"
"Go change your diaper. Yawn. "
"Use your damn brain."
"because people like YOU" [[Dale Carnegie anyone?)

Quote: "Come to the table when you're interested in intelligent, constructive debate."

You forget, we've been reading your "intelligent/constructive" debate for some time. It is neither.

Snopes is a credible source, but I wouldn't sign off 100% on anything they offer. They are no final authority, and neither are you.

Retroit · January-01-10, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by Jimaz

I really wish that the people who busy themselves initially creating these lies would just cut it out. The problem seems to have grown worse lately. Why can't they understand that they're only doing their own causes more harm than good?

They're trying to win each and every minor battle by any means necessary at the expense of losing the overall war. Well, I guess if liars try so hard to lose, who am I to complain? It just seems such a freakishly counterproductive strategy.

Did you ever think that these lies are actually being created by the Democrats? This is how it works: if you want to raise taxes let's say 10%, drum up a rumor that taxes will be raised 20%. When people find out that the 20% tax hike was just a rumor, they'll be more willing to accept the 10% tax hike.

**mjs** · January-01-10, 02:25 PM

Impressive research Oladub.

I would suspect they added the 'substantially remodeled' clause to plug a loophole and left it to an agency to define so the definition can be modified as quickly as the avoidance strategies. Without it, one could make a good argument that buying demo houses, stripping them down to their frames, and then building a larger structure around it should be exempt from the statute.

I assume they want as few exemptions as they can get and may not realize that it could actually help places like Detroit reclaim abandoned properties. It also seems it would create jobs by requiring more man power than new stuctures or even full demos. If the bill were to go through without this and it was found to have these benefits, fixing it would cost votes and not fixing it would cost votes.

**ghettopalmetto** · January-01-10, 04:16 PM

Sstashmoo, you posted a propagandistic lie. A lie that's not even yours, nor did you care to research. That's just laziness, plain and simple. You can't expect respect for intellectual sloth.

**Sstashmoo** · January-01-10, 04:32 PM

Quote: "Sstashmoo, you posted a propagandistic lie."

So.

Quote: "You can't expect respect"

Not looking for any. If you disagree with the post, so be it. No reason to attack me, and that is what this is. A poster above lends a bit of credence to the claim, why aren't you attacking them?

Quote: "I haven't found any evidence that, at least initially, there is a requirement for used homeowners to submit to an energy audit. On the other hand, I haven't found any specific wording that rules out such a search and required upgrades in the future. For instance, the Secretary [[of Energy?) may at his discretion, up the residential energy standards of a national energy code. It doesn't specify only on new housing. Snopes must have skipped over that."

**oladub** · January-03-10, 12:14 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Speaking of using one's damn brain, now we have ziggyselbin and oladub who are too lazy to even read the Snopes article, which makes it very clear that there is NO SUCH THING as a "middle class cap-and-trade tax".

You guys can piss and moan about liberals and the Democratic party, but as long as you propagate sheep politics, the "conservative" movement will just become a bigger joke than it already is. Come to the table when you're interested in intelligent, constructive debate.

gp, Whose at your table? The Oz Scarecrow? Try this. The middle class cap and trade tax will tax carbon. Coal has carbon; lots of carbon. The upper midwest derives a huge portion of its electricity from coal. Hundreds of dollars of coal carbon tax will be passed on to DTE customers. Manufacturers who produce things in such places will be less cost competetive. The result will be hidden taxes that show up in one's electric bill, at the gas pump, and even in local unemployment lines. Maybe if President Hopeychangey raises taxes enough there won't any longer be a middle class - so you might have a point. But He never asked you to think. He told you to believe. No brains required. Watch Oprah for practice.

mjs, I was wondering if the 'substantially remodeled' clause was left in as an oversight when the bill was substantially altered at 3:30am on the day it was voted on or if 'the Secretary' gets to define 'substantial' as a part of his broad power to redefine energy standards. Congress need not bother. I hadn't considered the money to be made in abandoned property.

Sstashmoo, Snopes Clift Notes are easier and often correct in an edited sort of way. You don't believe do you?

**Jimaz** · January-03-10, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by Retroit

Did you ever think that these lies are actually being created by the Democrats?...

Not likely the case under discussion here:

A License Required for your house

""Thinking about selling your house â€“ A look at H.R. 2454 [[Cap and trade bill) This is unbelievable!

Only the beginning from this administration!...

[emphasis mine]

I'm more interested about why the strategy of deliberately creating lies is more common today than, say, 40 years ago.

I recall a particular case in a political campaign from that era where the front-line troops were explicitly and sternly warned not to do anything unethical because it would only tarnish the whole campaign. I believe that reasoning was more widespread throughout both [[all?) parties then than it is today. Today it seems some front-line troops are being actively encouraged to do anything they want, ethical or not, as long as it's intended to further their cause. It seems the actual consequences of deliberately creating lies is being simply disregarded today.

I wonder why? What changed? Even Joseph Goebbels himself warned against overdoing it:

A propaganda theme must be repeated, but not beyond some point of diminishing effectiveness

So I don't completely buy the explanation that this phenomenon is a resurrection of Goebbelian strategy.

**Jimaz** · January-03-10, 08:13 PM

Okay, after rereading my previous post....

I didn't mean to imply that campaigns were more ethical 40 years ago. They weren't. That was around the time of Watergate. But The Plumbers were a small elite crew, carefully controlled.

What I meant was that the more numerous front-line, low-level troops of that era were prohibitted from such unethical activities. Today it seems they're being encouraged instead to run wild with no direction.

What changed?

**maxx** · January-10-10, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by Jimaz

I really wish that the people who busy themselves initially creating these lies would just cut it out. The problem seems to have grown worse lately. Why can't they understand that they're only doing their own causes more harm than good?

Do such emails even have source organizations you can research? Or are they just anonymous emails from "a friend"?

**maxx** · January-10-10, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Jimaz

Okay, after rereading my previous post....

I didn't mean to imply that campaigns were more ethical 40 years ago. They weren't. That was around the time of Watergate. But The Plumbers were a small elite crew, carefully controlled.

What I meant was that the more numerous front-line, low-level troops of that era were prohibitted from such unethical activities. Today it seems they're being encouraged instead to run wild with no direction.

What changed?

I think the amount of money in politics has only grown. There also appears to be a culture in politics of doing for yourself rather than public service. Even some churches preach of material rewards for beliefs or charitable giving. They worship a poor carpenter but they all want to be richer than Herod.