Okay, so it wasn’t quite the best word to describe the ex-Enron lobbyist now plugging the Federal Reserve as a woman who sells her services as a corporate/banking shill. No, I’m not talking about Alex Sink! But Grayson’s right. Problem is the rightwingers will never stop trying to use Grayson’s, or any of our words, to discredit us. Grayson’s apologized. Now it’s time to hit back. Grayson needs to go full bore public right now explaining the point he was making with that word. I’m sure he can do a better job than I can, but he should slam home the point that the woman is advocating for a self-serving, interest-conflicted banking “regulator” that enabled the reckless, greedy practices that led to the financial collapse and mild depression we are in, specifically throwing 8 million people out of work. Alan, YOU NEED TO MOVE ALL THE TALK FROM ‘THAT WORD’ TO THIS POINT. Refocus the public’s minds to the proper place. Now’s REALLY the time to fight back. It was a cakewalk for you up til now. This is a lesson for all of us anytime we slip up (or don’t) and use words that the enemies of our interests and values try to use against us. And it wouldn’t hurt to point out that men shill too and that you could easily have called a male lobbyist a K-Street Midnight Cowboy or gigolo. Your word had nothing to do with women, despite how the wingers will try to portray it.
Alan Grayson, Right Again
Alan Grayson, Right Again
You can follow all the replies to this entry through the comments feed.
OMG…….they really believe this guy has our best interest at heart…..I recenltly received an e-mail from Representative Grayson stating that cap and trade was a good thing because it would only cost the average family the cost of a postage stamp.
Well, let’s do the math. Postage today is 44 cents. 44 cents times 365 days equals $160 dollars per year. This additional charge is not for any additional service, this is for using the current resources you are currently using. So, according to Representative Grayson, the average family can affort to throw awy $160 dollars per year. If it sounds like a tax and it walks like a tax, isn’t it a tax?
The money is to be used for “green” projects and research. What ever happened to letting the market find the products and services the consumer would like to buy. If the green project does not make economic sense, the green project should not exist. Let’s just use an example, it appears that everyone believes that electric cars can solve our greenhouse gas emission problems. Even though I am not emitting green house gases from my combustion engine, doesn’t the power plant producing the electricity produce green house gasses? How does that reduce my carbon foot print?
I realize that Representastive Grayson believes the money from cap and trade will go to research to create “green” jobs, but rest assured, the money will be collected, but there is no guarantee the money will be used for green job creation. How is it that all the taxes we pay for gasoline is not being used for infrastructure?
Let’s let the average family keep their $160 to spend on themselves and not give it away in federal taxes through cap and trade.
I much prefer a carbon tax, and probably dislike cap and trade as much as Alan does, Hooley that is. Cap and trade is just another cowardly Liberal Democrat interest group compromise, which is especially egregious since it creates this auction market that the greedy Democratic Party funders at Goldman Sachs are already moving to get their hands on to rake 7% off the top of each trade for a few hours work, which we all end up paying. What’s 7% of $160 every year?
I’m willing to cut Grayson some slack since he’s a frosh and frosh have to shut up and go along in the House of Reps. He had to go along with the only thing the Dem leadership put on the table, which Grayson doesn’t yet have any control over.
Correction, there IS one person who doesn’t think electric cars are the answer, yet. ME! You’ve raised a good point about carbon generating electricity. And let’s add that we don’t have good enough, affordable batteries yet despite decades of research, not to mention the horrific surge in electricity demand if everybody starts recharging electric cars.
Surely you want to start doing something to prevent large parts of Florida’s coastal cities from going under water and having to be abandoned within 91 years. A carbon tax, slowly phased in according to evolving climate, economic and technological conditions would stimulate the markets for non-warming fuels, be they compressed natural gas as a transition, or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles or high efficiency batteries charged by solar, wind and other low carbon electricity.
I stopped reading after ‘rightwingers’.