I wouldn't worry about the transfer of any 'wealth' out of the United States.

If the current numbers are right, the US barely has enough to pay social security, medicare, and interest on the debt.

Oh I dont think I'd worry about national sovereignty too much,going to walmart does more to ruin our national sovereignty than our government could ever do.Cmate we've found the enemy and it is ourselves.

You know it's about time the rest of the world takes over some responsibility for it's own actions,I'm pretty sick of paying for the rest of the worlds' problems.Yes there's global warming.We're 10,000 years out of an Ice Age.Look at the boulders out in your woods cmate,they did'nt walk there on their own.As I've been saying whether we have anything to do with it or not  is not important,what is is that ya,the earth's warming up again.Anyone know why Greenland is called Greenland? At one time there was no ice there.

What we should be doing is burning something else other than oil.Thats why Obama is doing all this.We have got to get off of the oil addiction there's absolutely no doubt about that.As far as being protectionist and saving our own jobs,you know what?Americans expect too much for too little.We're the highest paid workers in the world with the fewest hours worked(except for France)We have gotten L A Z Y, simple as that.We used to be good, we are not anymore.We now need to pay,sorry.

I don't think thats what Copenhagen is about.

From the media activism, it seems to be about a global goal of achieving atmospheric carbon dioxide of no more than 350ppm.

To make this happen the US would need to deregulate certain areas of commerce, which isn't likely to happen.

I agree completely with you on this cmate knowing we do not agree on many issues but this one I do completely agree with you on scientifically. Modern humankind has not been around long enough to be able to conclude scientifically,even with historical ice data,tree rings, modern technical dating etc. that we have had any effect at all on long term climate.Earth's climate changes dramatically on a daily basis.I will conclude that yes,the Earth is warming up and as I say over and over again,where you and I sit cmate(you're in Pennsylvania and I'm in NH) there was 2 miles of solid ice and this did'nt retreat until 10,000-50,000 years ago.2 miles of solid ice is A LOT of ice.Thats 10,560 feet of ice!Thats a lot of extremely cold(32 to-100 all year long for many years!)weather to be able to produce an ice sheet that big.We still have problems with time scales and it shows in our data.Now the flip side of the coin:

That does not mean that we should go on the way we are.Nature,God,or the Force meant for that oil,gas and coal to stay in the ground and there it should stay.We know enough now as a civilization that there are excesses;that there IS an 'end' to the resources we have and that we are smart enough as a civilization to be able to cheaply make our own resouces and that is proven every day.If it takes a scare such as global warming then so be it.As I say,junk science is junk science.CO2 takes 25 -50years to break down to carbon and oxygen in free air and that is not mentioned at all anywhere,why?Methane is more the problem,it is heavy and is ten times what CO2 is yet you never hear about it,why?Cheap'n easy is'nt cheap and easy anymore,the true cost is being borne out now and yea there are going to be winners and losers like in everything.Energy needs to be diversified,there is too much power being levied by too few concerning energy and that has to be changed and the start to that change is how we use it and the ways we use it.We're starting but we're way behind others in the world.Obama knows all this cmate if I were you I dump stocks in coal and oil and go green.There is no clean coal,lot of it but we can do better.

Davisonh, your mistaking orbital forcing for atmospheric and oceanic tempering. They work together but both exist. And Cmate, your mistaking a short cycle phenomena for long term climate change.

While Pat is mistaking State's Rights... with absolution of federal empowerment ratified within the US Constitution (by the way Texas entered the Union because Mexico wanted it back... not much different than the New England states fearing the British and French to the north). Also, I have no clue what RFID is... RealID is a program where a State may voluntarily submit to a program were its identification documents will be held equal to a federal one. It like NAIS came from New England; we're use to crossing from Canada back into the US with just a State-issued driver's license... but now must get a passport.

Largely because US Con Article One Section Eight, empowering the Congress to control interstate commerce... they have the ability to do so. The question is: Even if nothing comes of Copenhagen, do you believe that the US Congress will not increase CAFE standards? Increase taxation on gasoline/diesel? Etc.

Believe me... China and India are not going to sign onto Copenhagen; and neither will the US Congress without them.

RFID stands for radio frequency identification as part of the RealID program. The problem is that a RFID chip in a driver's license or credit card can be read by unauthorized people with a reader from 20 feet away, all without your knowledge. Campaignforliberty.com had articles on this.

Our local Campaign for Liberty group is doing a lot of research on the Constitution right now to prepare  a class for our region. We are using documents that the Constitution was based on in order to learn the true meaning. You would be amazed how much power the Federal government has now that originally was meant only for the states. The Founding Fathers never meant for the Federal government to be a provider of services such as health care, subsidies, social security, etc. The interstate commerce clause was not meant to overrule the states' rights, but rather to come to mutual agreements on commerce. In other words, we now have the kind of government that the Founding Fathers were trying to prevent.

Interesting that by Jefferson's second term, the only taxes in the United States were on imports! Imagine what it would be like to keep all that you earned. Wait till this climate bill passes.

RFID chips only give off a very small code, that without a file to reference the number to... mean very little. It would be like me knowing your driver's license number... without the files attached to the number, the number doesn't mean anything.

The programs you speak of are not interstate commerce. The mechanism of taxation was empowered under the 16th Amendment... something that the Founders could not write about. The programs were contested under Article Three Section Two, and upheld... though the courts have issued opinion that the taxation is not directly tied to the programs... as such the taxation can continue regardless of the programs.

The climate bill is simply a mechanism for determining taxation. Its empowerment is Article One Section Eight Clause One... original to the US Constitution.

States' Rights are not found within the US Constitution. The specific amendment to that document is the 10th. It does not give the States any rights... it simply 'reserves' those items not empowered to the federal government for the States, or the People. The States' powers come from the People based on their various constitutions.

Did they teach you yet that Thomas Jefferson held both the Jay Treaty and Louisiana Purchase to be unconstitional. In his world... you would be living in a part of Spain, and I returned to Quebec.

History is interesting... but law is contemporary.

Actually, Pat would be in a part of France, which is who we bought Louisiana from.  It was transferred from Spain to France by Third Treaty of San Ildefonso in 1800.

John, Jefferson is an interesting guy.  Made the Louisiana Purchase even though he doubted it was constitutional.  If Jefferson had his way, the US would never have been more than a banana republic of gentleman farmers.

And Pat, the cost of Cap and trade will be peanuts.  Pennies per day.

John, RFID info has already been used for identity theft, I guess the crooks know how to access the files.

I should have used the term "states powers" instead of  "states rights". Our U.S Constitution is Federal, not National. In Nationalism, the States would be subservient. In Federalism, the States are not subservient to the Federal government, but instead co-equals in power. Therefore, I see nothing in Article 1 Section 8 that allows the Federal government to force the climate bill on the States. Timothy Baldwin is really good on this subject.

As far as the 16th amendment, the Founders would never have approved of a personal income tax, this was considered confiscation of property by them. They referenced the Enlightenment Philosophers such as John Locke, who makes fascinating reading to this day.

The Supreme Court is unlikely to rule against today's Federal government.

Yes, I knew that Jefferson considered the Louisiana Purchase to be unconstitutional. See Jefferson's letters of 1803 for his summary. "I thought it my duty to risk myself for you." he said, anticipating that Congress would make an amendment because of  the importance of the purchase. If you doubt his intelligence, read his writings (1600 pages in my book).

Cap and Trade only pennies a day? Are they 1909S VDB pennies?

The Founders didn't have to approve of a personal income tax... they weren't sovereigns. And the Congress couldn't make an amendment for the Louisiana Purchase... only the People can ratify an amendment.

The power of the US Constitution and State Constitutions comes from the People. Which is what the 10th represents. Its contemporary, not tradional in nature...

You see nothing in Article One Section Eight that allows for the climate bill?

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Right there is the empowerment. The Congress never has to pass the climate bill. If you look closely they already tax the subject of the bill in various formats and could simply raise the rates. Higher taxes means a higher cost, and higher costs means people looking for ways to cut back on usage.

For credit fraud, I don't need access to your file. But any place you've used your credit card... the information would be on file.

I was only stating the Founder's opinion of an income tax, and that Jefferson expected the proposal of an amendment.

So far, over 20 states have exercised their sovereign rights by refusing to implement the 2005 RealID act. I expect the same thing will happen if provisions of the climate bill are unacceptable to the states because there are so many rules and regulations in the bill in addition to taxes. What if they include the 15% ethanol requirement proposed for gasoline? None of the cars that I know of are approved for more than 10%, except for the flex fuel E85 cars.

The RealID Act was voluntary to the States.

A State could, if it wished, have its identification formats be considered equal to the federal ones.

The Climate Bill will not be voluntary to the individual States... as Congress is empowered with the ability to lay and collect taxes. There would need to be an amendment to the US Constitution restricting this empowerment... and that can only come from the People.

I agree that Congress has the power to lay amd collect taxes, but I think the restriction already exists. As co-equals, Congress and the States should both agree on the terms of the taxes. Otherwise, the States become subservient. Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions seem to support this idea, but not all agreed with Jefferson. This is why our group is digging  into so many early records. Federalist 45 and 46 touch on this also, but we have a lot more research to do. We won't even get to Elliot's Debates this year.

Anyway, John, I value your input. This research is a window to a fascinating time in history when the Founding Fathers knew firsthand how controlling a government can become.

The State and federal governments are not equals. The States (for the most part) are sovereign... with the federal government empowered only with those thing enumerated within the US Constitution.

But regardless of the media from the States, they are all willing to increase the taxes at the federal level. It allows them to scapegoat 'Washington Insiders', while in reality the taxes are being returned to the States in the form of federal grants and transfer payments.

So why does the US need higher taxes? And why the Healthcare and C&T bills? Studying the Constitution won't lead to the answer because its economic, not political. During the last audited period of the federal budget, it was determined that after the expenditures for SS, Medicare, and the Interest on National Debt... that the US had only roughly $180 billion for military and domestic expenditures. To balance the budget you would either need to make huge cuts in the military, and stop all domestic spending... or need further revenues. With the current recession holding on... federal revenues are even lower.

So the C&T is about raising revenues through a type of national excise (sales) tax, while the Healthcare bill is about slowing the inflation in the Medicare system. The problem being in that both work on projections... and no one can really determine what will happen over the next ten or twenty years for sure.

If your wondering... neither of these will work. Demographics and market forces just can't be manipulated in this manner. The population is already cutting back its energy use, and most likely will do more a money and technology allow. And no one in the Medicare system is willing to support rationing, that is a natural for those outside the system.

You can only rob Peter to pay Paul as long as Peter has something to steal.

Yes, it is definitely an economic problem, as we discussed in the "Your Money is Now Worth Nothing " thread. That's why Ron Paul is trying to get a full audit of the Fed, especially of our money that continues to go to foreign countries. Politics may not solve the problem, but I see no economic recovery at all if the Fed is allowed to keep creating fiat money, which is another violation of Article 1 Section 8.

It now looks like those who control our politicians will prevent the audit, as HR 1207 has been gutted.

The Federal Reserve Board of Governors get their power through the Federal Reserve Act enacted by Congress. Congress gets its empowerment to do so in Article One Section Eight : To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof.

The FED wasn't empowered to control fiscal policy which remains under congressional control. Some reading so you know the system... http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm

I do like how Congressman Paul suggests that Congress decree (fiat) the Gold Standard, but fails to tell the public that the US Treasury only hold roughly $167 billion dollars of gold within the Bullion Depository at current market prices.

The US currency going to foreign countries are mostly when Americans purchase something. Those foreigners tend to exchange the digitized warehouse receipts for interest paying debt instruments issued by the Treasury; to borrow the money Congress expends beyond revenue. For a list of foreign holders of debt by country you can link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

The remainder of the debt is mostly held by the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds... workers in the US have been paying surplus into them since the early days of the Reagan Era, when Ron Paul first entered Congress.

But if you figure what expenses to cut or what taxes to raise to balance the budget... by all means I'm interested to listen.

Thanks for the websites, I will spend some time there.

I think that the Fed should be abolished because their artificial interest rates caused the boom and bust. Let each independent bank compete on the free market instead of having a central banking system. No bank should be bailed out by taxpayers, then they will lend with care or go under. We can't bail all.

I don't think it matters how much gold the treasury has because the free market is adjusting the price as the dollar fails. People would prefer dollars over gold if dollars were rising or stable, so the gold would stay in the treasury. India knows that the Fed will inflate, they just bought 200 tons of gold.

Expenses to cut: We have 300,000 troops on 700 bases in 150 countries. Bring them home and return our country to a non-interventionist policy. We are making too many enemies and wasting trillions. Return social security to a single pension supplement only, no other entitlements from those funds, and adjust payouts to receipts to prevent a deficit. Phase out Medicare and Medicaid, let the people keep their money and buy services on the free market like they did before these unsustainable programs.

I guess we have strayed a bit from the climate theme, but it is ALL government spending that concerns me.

The bust was caused by fractional reserve banking outside the federal reserve system.

The tin foil also helps to prevent setting of the retail shoplifting scanners at the mall. Those poor people deal with false alarms all the time.

I don't know if enough carbon could be placed in the atmosphere to offset reduce solar gain due to orbital forcing while still maintaining a breathable atmosphere for higher life species. It may be possible to limit glaciation, but so many technological means exist that something could be devised.

I think regardless of treaty/legislation that the problem will remain supply/demand, especially as China and India advance, with the politicians really looking toward a revenue stream. The UN and the US Congress are always looking for revenue streams that have popular support... well, that is until the population begins to realize that they are the revenue stream and not their neighbors.

Climate change happens.  So does panic.  Can y'all imagine how scared our Paleolithic ancestors were when the last Ice Age came to an end???

I'm human.  Climate change scares me.  I like my routine.  I like my familiar surroundings, patterns, foodstuffs, behaviors. 

What scares me even more is A) the idea that someone will find a way to reverse it in the absense of all the facts, only to find out that it was a natural process and we made the mother of all mistakes, and B) the thought, apparently painfully accurate, that we need the threat of a crisis of global proportions to get us to consider conservation and ecology. 

We shouldn't need sob stories about polar bears-- or the fear that we're next-- to make us care about our environment.  We shouldn't need lectures about the effects of 10,000 pounds of CO2 to inspire us to use the cleanest technologies available to us.  We shouldn't need code regulations-- or C&T, or $120-a-barrel oil, for that matter-- to motivate us to be efficient.

None of us-- none of us over the age of 3, anyway-- would pull down our pants and leave a pile in the middle of the kitchen floor.  It's the same thing as far as I'm concerned, man-made climate change or no. 

Neanderthals had better sense than to defecate in the spring.  Why don't we???? 

Climate change isn't like weather... its doubtful that our ancestors even realized it was happening.

C&T isn't about efficiency (which is regulated in many ways), anymore than $120 oil was about Peak Oil. Most of it is about the federal fiscal situation. When the fiscal situation gets to where there are questions about the US being able to pay the interest on its debt... it affects the value of the dollar. Under past circumstances they would ask the FED to make interest rate adjustments to prop it up... but do to several factors, the FED no longer has the ability to move the interest rate anywhere. Its simply along for the ride.

How bad is the situtation? The federal government needs to figure a way to increase revenue, while not stagnating the economy with burdensome taxation. The secret is a type of price fixing...

OK-- I'm completely ignorant.  110% the "useful idiot" in that I want to do what is right but don't seem to have the reasoning skills to figure out what that is (much beyond my own yard, anyway).

Tried to read the Wikipedia article on the national debt; most of what I got was a spinning headache.  Other than that...

...the thought it leaves me with (and some of this has to be ascribed to an op-ed article I was reading a minute ago) (link at the bottom) is that we've got the tiger by the tail and we've got to let go.  That, to continue the metaphor, it's better to fight the tiger now than to hang on and ride to where it's going. 

If we "jest fuggin quiddit," as the little hillbilly in my head looks up from her washboard long enough to say, we'll have widespread poverty, hunger, a return to everyone having to fall back on the charity of their community and/or family when things get tough.  This is not some Little House on the Prairie idealism, where Good Ol' Jack won't let the wolves come in, and anyway Pa's got his gun and everything is going to be all right..  This is a very exacting, very difficult, and all too tenuous existence. 

But it seems like the better alternative to ending up a managed herd of corporate chattel, only to have the same thing happen anyway a few hundred years down the road. 

I'm probably an ignorant little lemming who just doesn't get it.  Very real possibility.  I feel very lemming-like.  Somebody please educate me.  Think I'll try to stay up tonight and read that stuff again...

( http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/20/navarrette.move.for.jobs/index.html  ) 

Oh-- I don't quite buy that they wouldn't have noticed it.  I notice it, and I'm nowhere near as intimately tied to my environment as they were.  It's not just weather-- though folks do notice that winters here are getting warmer, and I notice that summers back in WV are getting cooler and drier (in places where I used to be able to pick buckets of berries, it's now mostly brambles that bear little to no fruit; what used to be creeks are now runoff washes and what used to be washes are now just dry) and that winter comes later and stays later.  It's bugs whose ranges used to end 150 miles to the south-- or that come sooner and end later, or don't die out over the winter at all.  It's changes in the plant and animal life on the coast, and in the rivers.  Changes in animal's nesting and hibernation behaviors.  Changes in foliage-- 50 years ago, so the old men say (if they are to be believed), this was hardwood country and the cedars were a Louisiana thing.  This is cedar country now.  Things are moving, changing, adapting-- or they're dying back.

You're waaaay smarter (or at least better educated) than I am, but you can't get me to believe hunter-gatherers wouldn't have noticed that some of the things they hunted and gathered were diminishing or gone and that others weren't where they used to be.     

When your nomadic and have a shorter average lifespan... those things aren't as noticed. The game keeps moving and you keep moving.

They would note the change in seasons... but less by temperature than by amount of daylight, which changes at a fairly constant rate.