1/4% Tax on all stock trades pushed in NY Times today

jksn922 · Dec 18, 2009

Quote from listedguru:

I just read a copy of the draft and it really doesn't say much about the financing stuff other than what was reported earlier. I guess no mention of a transaction tax is good.

I guess the goal is to turn this 'accord' into a legally binding treaty in the future. From what I read previouly the US Senate has to ratifiy any treaty with a 2/3 majority vote. That means it would take 67 Senators to vote for this (if I understand correctly).

-Guru

I recalled reading that as well. If that's the case, we should be in good shape, as they would need 7 Republicans. Ain't happening!

listedguru · Dec 18, 2009

Quote from jksn922:

'Meaningful' Climate Deal Said To Fall Short Of Goals.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/18/obama-worlds-climate-change-hangs-balance-copenhagen/

From the above piece:

"As with many of these deals, the real economic pain is postponed, in all likelihood until the president has left office. The $100 billion global relief fund comes from many sources, public and private, and may include monies already allocated elsewhere. Still, American taxpayers will pay more than their fair share, and at a time when many don't feel climate change is the nation's No. 1 priority."

-Guru

jksn922 · Dec 18, 2009

Quote from andy9775:

he just said that they will not be legally bound by today. Also read an article that addressed that question and no under a climate bill of sorts the president can enter into a legally binding agreement in order to protect the stratosphere.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/does-obama-need-67-votes-climate-treaty-not-necessarily

There's a legal argument about this. If Obama does this on his own, without involving Congress, he can kiss a second term goodbye.

rsikit · Dec 18, 2009

Quote from listedguru:

I just read a copy of the draft and it really doesn't say much about the financing stuff other than what was reported earlier. I guess no mention of a transaction tax is good.

I guess the goal is to turn this 'accord' into a legally binding treaty in the future. From what I read previouly the US Senate has to ratifiy any treaty with a 2/3 majority vote. That means it would take 67 Senators to vote for this (if I understand correctly).

-Guru

All this does is put it off another year as they have been doing the past 14 years or so

They will never get anything meaningful done. As I am not a climate is warming believer anyways, so to me its wasted energy and money

listedguru · Dec 18, 2009

Quote from andy9775:

he just said that they will not be legally bound by today. Also read an article that addressed that question and no under a climate bill of sorts the president can enter into a legally binding agreement in order to protect the stratosphere.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/does-obama-need-67-votes-climate-treaty-not-necessarily

Thanks for posting that. Kind of sucks when you read it. Sounds like he might be able to get around having to get the votes in the Senate. But then again it sounds kind of 'iffy' and I could see some Supreme Court action if he tried to pull some of that stuff...

-Guru

listedguru · Dec 18, 2009

Quote from rsikit:

All this does is put it off another year as they have been doing the past 14 years or so They will never get anything meaningful done. As I am not a climate is warming believer anyways, so to me its wasted energy and money

Yeah good point. They figured they needed to come out of there with something in hand I guess.

I just want some more clarification on the financing stuff. We may need to step up our fight.

-Guru

andy9775 · Dec 18, 2009

Quote from listedguru:

Thanks for posting that. Kind of sucks when you read it. Sounds like he might be able to get around having to get the votes in the Senate. But then again it sounds kind of 'iffy' and I could see some Supreme Court action if he tried to pull some of that stuff...

-Guru

It does say that the effect has to be on the stratosphere, so the question is, is he willing to risk it. Also Important to note that the republicans may grab a few votes, congressional elections next year, correct.

listedguru · Dec 18, 2009

This is interesting:

"Brazil also approved the deal that appeared to bypass other participants at UN-led climate talks in Copenhagen. The accord did not have guaranteed approval from all 193 nations. Noticeably, EU nations were absent from the meeting."

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...-with-emerging-powers/articleshow/5353963.cms

I wonder if the EU nations are going to sign on?

-Guru

andy9775 · Dec 18, 2009

Sarkozy says all nations agree. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BH1SQ20091218

GreenTraderTax · Dec 18, 2009

Please give me your comments ASAP on our new Petition below. We want to publish it on our Rally Congress page by this weekend. We can always edit it afterwards as well too.

Note: Climate conference news is important but I doubt the Americans or Chinese â âChimericaâ as the German media says - will commit their governments to a financial-transaction tax. Communist China can not allow full transparency as required by Americans; it compromises their Chinese Wall and exposes too many hidden secrets behind their iron-red curtain. I think the final press releases will report concrete progress - justifying this expensive conference and Chimerica political capital â and show progress on agreed to emission reduction goals, steps towards achieving verification (short of details, so its not worth much) and a funding mandate (to put out that fire in the undeveloped world). Funding will be open to further discussion and it certainly wonât be a framework for passing a financial transaction tax. Again, the US will tie it to cap and trade and other general funding. I am catching up on some of the summit news tonight. Busy week with year end tax planning.

My next post has the New Petition.