Democrats Introduce ‘Climate Change’ Bonds Bill, Say You’re Unpatriotic If You Do Not Buy Them

It has zero chance of passing a Republican Congress, it will never even make it out of committee. This is a new one in regards to using Other People’s money, though

(The Hill) Two Senate Democrats have introduced a bill to create a new climate change adaptation fund to be paid for through new federal bonds.

The bond program — from Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) — would provide up to $200 million annually for a Commerce Department grant program to fund climate change adaptation work around the country.

Introducing the bill on Wednesday, Boxer and Durbin compared the climate change bond program to the war bonds sold by the federal government during the World Wars.

Except, those wars were real, based on real issues. If Barbara and Dick really cared, they’d stop traveling across the country using fossil fuels.

Boxer said the bonds would let Americans literally buy into federal climate change work.

In other words, they will be forced to buy those bonds when all is said and done, and their patriotism will be questioned if they don’t.

“It gives the American people the chance to adapt to what is coming while we fight to reduce the ravages,” she said at a press conference. “We already see the ravages have started.”

Ravages!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The fund would tap an expert committee — made up of bipartisan appointments — to vet projects designed to adapt to climate change, focusing on everything from droughts to flooding to severe weather events.

In other words, the weather. Things that have always happened, and will always happen.

Boxer is super excited

Funny how all this seems to enable more government. Because that is what it does. But, if you don’t want to buy climate bonds, you’re unpatriotic (you thought I was being over the top earlier in the post and in the headline, didn’t you)

The stupid, it burns!

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

23 Responses to “Democrats Introduce ‘Climate Change’ Bonds Bill, Say You’re Unpatriotic If You Do Not Buy Them”

  1. Dana says:

    Me, I think that it’s great! the J Boys can now invest their money where their mouths are! Yeah, it’s more deficit spending, but at least it’ll give the left of funding some of the deficit spending they love so much by themselves.

  2. Dana says:

    In fact, I’d suggest another “green” bonds program: rather than having the government waste everybody’s money on boondoggles like Solyndra, let such projects be financed by a set of Solar Energy Bonds. Then we’ll be able to measure just how much confidence the left have in such investments.

  3. glenny says:

    Sounds like junk bonds to me !

  4. SafetyGuy says:

    I’m writing my Senators today. My comment will be “Pass it, but zero taxpayer $ to either fund or pay returns.”

    Allow the brain dead to feel the economical pain of their stupidity.

  5. Stosh says:

    It’s fine, and the returns on the bonds should mirror the success of the projects at a negative 20%

  6. Jeffery says:

    I guess D-Boy 2, and the other minions of Teach, have no idea how government bonds work. What a surprise.

    Ask D-Boy 2 if he’s given up sucking the teat of the government.

  7. Jeffery says:

    Teach typed:

    … will be forced to buy those bonds when all is said and done

    How will Americans be forced to buy bonds?

  8. gitarcarver says:

    I guess D-Boy 2, and the other minions of Teach, have no idea how government bonds work. What a surprise.

    I guess Jeffery believes that bond purchases can only be optional.

    What a surprise that he is wrong. Again.

    How will Americans be forced to buy bonds?

    So you believe that Americans cannot be forced by the government to buy something? So according to you, Americans don’t have to buy health insurance?

    Does the IRS know of your opinion in this matter?

  9. Dana says:

    Here I support the idea of these special bonds, and still the sillier J Boy goes nuts over it!

    I guess D-Boy 2, and the other minions of Teach, have no idea how government bonds work. What a surprise.

    I wholeheartedly support the idea of bonds for his special purpose — really, an idea no different in kind from special bonds to build a toll road — which would give the warmists the chance to invest heir money where they believe it is needed, yet still Jeffrey comes close to having a stroke over it.

    Perhaps it was my sentence, “Then we’ll be able to measure just how much confidence the left have in such investments,” which set him off so badly, because he knows that the left won’t put its money where it’s (collective) mouth has been.

  10. Jeffery says:

    D-Boi 2 becomes apoplectic, a sure sign he’s caught in another fib.

    We’re not surprised you support government bonds – and using government bonds to build roads lines your pocket, right? No wonder you love government bonds.

  11. Jeffery says:

    GC,

    No, you are not going to be forced to buy global warming bonds.

    Your citation is irrelevant to the question, and is a clear sign of your unhinged desperation. Requiring banks to have sufficient funds to prevent another 2007 financial meltdown is not the same as forcing individuals to buy bonds (which is not happening).

    Requiring health insurance is not relevant to being forced to buy bonds (which is not happening), and is a clear sign of your desperation.

    So no, you are not going to be forced to buy global warming bonds. If you don’t want to buy government bonds, don’t buy government bonds. You can select bond funds that do not contain these bonds.

    It’s just another right-wing shitstorm hissy fit over global warming.

  12. Jeffery says:

    Here’s something substantive to get all shitstormy about.

    The House Just Voted To Give Wall Street Billions From Americans’ Retirement Savings

    The House voted 234 to 188 Thursday to undo a rule proposed by the Labor Department earlier this month that would require anyone getting paid to provide retirement investment advice to act in the best interest of retirees. Many people think that’s already how things work, but it isn’t.

    This is just another example of how government policies or lack of oversight redistributes money from the working classes to the wealthy.

    The way things work right now is that brokers who oversee retirement savings accounts can be paid extra to steer their clients into unnecessarily expensive funds or excessively risky investments, without disclosing that fact to their clients. That sort of conflicted investment advice costs Americans saving for retirement $17 billion a year, according to the White House Council of Economic Advisers.

    The conservative dogma is caveat emptor, to put the responsibility for detecting fraud on the customer with no restraints on the brokers. Thanks Congress.

    http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/fsconflictsofinterest.html

  13. Dana says:

    The sillier J Boy — since he likes to assign numbers, he can be J Boy ¼ — tries to pick nits in his attempt to say that people wouldn’t be “forced” to buy globall warming bonds, but, as always, misses the point: the government does try to force people to buy things they wouldn’t choose to buy otherwise: health insurance, automobile insurance and, with their Social Security taxes, United States Treasury Bills. (Federal law specifies that excess Social Security funds may be invested in only one thing, US Treasury Bills.) And it was just yesterday that he said that people couldn’t be trusted to do the right thing, and therefore someone — presumably the government — needed to provide “incentives” to get people to take the decisions that the left want then to take.

    The left are all about government control.

  14. gitarcarver says:

    As usual, Jeffery doesn’t understand when the facts have gone against him and instead chooses to live in a fantasy world.

    He asked “How will Americans be forced to buy bonds?”

    When given the example of how entities have been forced to buy bonds by the government, he shifts the goalposts away from the action of being forced to buy the bonds, to the reason to buy bonds. (He even gets his reasons slightly wrong, but that is typical of him.)

    Unable to shake the idea that the government can force a legal person to buy a bond, he turns to try and dismissing people being forced to buy healthcare. The point is that the government is forcing people to buy a product.

    The idea is clear: the government has the ability to force legal persons to buy bonds and force people to buy products.

    Whether they will or not may be another discussion, but that is not the point that he tried to raise and ultimately failed miserably at doing.

  15. gitarcarver says:

    Here’s something substantive to get all shitstormy about.

    Yeah, it would be if you understood what was happening, but as usual, you don’t have a clue.

    The proposed rule made it so that a provider would have to prove they acted in the best interest of a person AFTER THE FACT.

    In other words, a person could have acted in the best interest and if an investment failed, the government could have leveled criminal charges. It also set up a system where civil attorneys (a favorite lobbying group of leftists) would have had another bite at the apple in that the standard of proof would have shifted from the government and the attorneys proving something wrong had happened to the companies having to prove they were innocent.

    So Jeffery wants to run around screaming that more government oversight is great and people and companies are always guilty.

    Typical left leaning viewpoints.

  16. Hank_M says:

    jeff : “I guess D-Boy 2, and the other minions of Teach, have no idea how government bonds work. What a surprise.”

    says the economic illiterate.
    And then you try to change the subject.

    Instead of insulting Dana and gitarcarver, try reading what they write. You might learn something.

  17. Dana says:

    Mr M wrote:

    Instead of insulting Dana and gitarcarver, try reading what they write.

    It simply shows that he’s a lot more like Donald Trump than he’d believe: he believes that he must always hit back, harder and lower.

    Harder, he cannot do; lower, yeah, he’s up for that!

    I s’pose I started it by referring to Jeffrey and John collectively as the J Boys. I didn’t realize that he’d be so thin-skinned as to take that as an insult, but he did. Fortunately, I’m not so thin-skinned that I worry about “D-Boy 2.” It simply inspired me to give Jeffrey a number, J Boy ¼.

  18. Dana says:

    Mr Carver wrote:

    So Jeffery wants to run around screaming that more government oversight is great and people and companies are always guilty.

    Government oversight is always great to the left, as long as the left hold the White House. If Donald Trump or Ted Cruz is our next President, they’ll quickly change their tune.

    However, this is the unspoken part of the left’s complain that corporations are legal persons. If the left could get corporate personhood revoked, the biggest change is what they’d really like to see, the loss of civil rights for corporations. Don’t like Exxon? Why, all that the government would have to do is accuse them of a crime, and Exxon would lack the right to a fair trial; it’s a back door around the prohibition on bills of attainder.

    The same would hold true for civil suits, which any leftist or gender confused idiot can file: sue Walmart, and the plaintiff automatically wins, because the corporation would not be entitled to defend itself in a court of law.

  19. Jeffery says:

    Jeez, more mudwrestling with the lonely GC. Thought you’d be busy with all your comments at YOUR blog, lol.

    Sorry, homey don’t play dat.

  20. Jeffery says:

    Mr. M.,

    Don’t whine like a baby.

    D-Boi-2, the Lesser D-Boi, whatever, and the other D-Boi’s, Teach himself, and GC spend most of their time insulting others, and I have no problem playing along.

    Some of them (but not all, by any stretch) have a smattering of native intelligence, but lack the ability to reason, evaluate evidence and peer out of their ideologically constrained cocoon.

    They are heavy on word-games, logical fallacies, semanticism, logical fallacies, ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies. Did I mention logical fallacies? They are light on evidence and reason.

    And of course we’ve never accused all companies of being guilty. Conservatists typically err on the side of the corporations in disputes with us commoners.

  21. drowningpuppies says:

    They are heavy on word-games, logical fallacies, semanticism, logical fallacies, ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies. Did I mention logical fallacies? They are light on evidence and reason.

    -the little guy who exaggerates often describes himself and tarded johnny

  22. Hank_M says:

    jeff wrote: “Some of them (but not all, by any stretch) have a smattering of native intelligence, but lack the ability to reason, evaluate evidence and peer out of their ideologically constrained cocoon.”

    That pegs the projection meter.

  23. gitarcarver says:

    Sorry, homey don’t play dat.

    Poor Jeffery,

    Whapped in the head with more facts he cannot refute, he insults and then runs away.

    And of course we’ve never accused all companies of being guilty.

    Yeah, your company that does the things that you say are morally wrong is okay in your eyes.

    After all, it is making you money, so that is all you care about.

    Conservatists typically err on the side of the corporations in disputes with us commoners.

    Talk about not being self aware….. you ARE a corporation Jeffery. You aren’t a “commoner.” After all, how many times have you told us how much better you are for being in a high tax bracket, etc.?

    People can’t have normal discussions with you because you have no moral code. You lie constantly and project your inadequacies onto others.

Bad Behavior has blocked 6023 access attempts in the last 7 days.