• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Crime Inc - Cap And Trade

BeAChooser

Banned
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
11,716
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jgtia8XJDhtzR-ed3ZzuVOLC4DvQD9GBVB4G0

WASHINGTON — A climate and energy bill being pushed in the Senate would cost American households 22 to 40 cents a day — less than the cost of a first-class postage stamp, the Obama administration said Tuesday.

LIARS.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html

According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. … snip … A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it contains so many caveats as to render it useless.

For starters, the CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.

To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO's analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.

The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."

The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

… snip …

Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can't repeal that reality.

The Obama administration is composed of socialist liars. In fact, the folks pushing this legislation are criminals who stand to make billions off it, because who do you think owns and run the Chicago Climate Exchange where carbon credits will get traded?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,592243,00.html
 
Watching Glenn Beck?

I don't like cap and trade, but I don't see the "crime" or "lying socialists" thing.
 
I'm surprised, BAC. Given the fact that you believe free markets can't self regulate, I'm shocked you are against cap and trade.
 
I don't like cap and trade, but I don't see the "crime" or "lying socialists" thing.

Really?

You see no conflict of interest in the actions of these *public servants*? :rolleyes:

You see no lies in their claims about the cost of Cap And Trade? :rolleyes:

As for the socialist "thing", who do you think helped write the Cap and Trade Bill? An organization called the Apollo Alliance. They've admitted this. So did Harry Reid. And what is the Apollo Alliance? A coalition of unions (like SEIU), social justice groups (like ACORN) and environmentalists. The founder of the Alliance is Van Jones ... the self admitted communist that Obama appointed as his Green Jobs Czar. Ron Bloom, who Obama named his Manufacturing Czar is on the Apollo Board, and Bloom has spent a lot of time around DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) members and contributing to DSA publications. Another Apollo Alliance board member is Joel Rogers, founder of the socialist New Party. Frankly, TB, I have to question the eyesight of anyone who doesn't see a surprising number of socialists around Obama and his agenda. :rolleyes:
 
Oh my word, I actually almost agree with something BAC said!

I believe that the government consistently uses accounting tricks to make pending bills seem less costly. Many budgets are only for 11 months. GWB's predictions about the cost of his "death tax" bill assumed that the estate tax would snap from nonextistent in 2010 all the way back to $1 mil. in 2011.

Everything else he says is Sarah Palin-grade nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Prove it.
I couldn't prove everything you post is nonsense. After all, you do agree that the free market failed in the Gulf coast. Your demand of better government oversight is quite refreshing.

But you do have your moments. (see my sig).
 
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jgtia8XJDhtzR-ed3ZzuVOLC4DvQD9GBVB4G0



LIARS.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html



The Obama administration is composed of socialist liars. In fact, the folks pushing this legislation are criminals who stand to make billions off it, because who do you think owns and run the Chicago Climate Exchange where carbon credits will get traded?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,592243,00.html

ts;dr
 
Oh my word, I actually almost agree with something BAC said!

I believe that the government consistently uses accounting tricks to make pending bills seem less costly. Many budgets are only for 11 months. GWB's predictions about the cost of his "death tax" bill assumed that the estate tax would snap from nonextistent in 2010 all the way back to $1 mil. in 2011.

Everything else he says is Sarah Palin-grade nonsense.

Agreed. When the Government says it will cost One Dollar, it will probably end up costing One Fifty.
That goes across the board, for everything from Defense to a road in a National forest...
Everything else in BAC's post is nonsense, though.
 
Cap and trade uses the free market to set the price of CO2 emissions. It is therefore the least “socialist” solution on the table.

A carbon tax uses a government derived price for CO2 emissions. It is without doubt less free market orientated then Cap and Trade, though it’s no more “socialist” then any other system of government regulation.

BaC seems to favor the cooperate welfare solution that simply has the public singing the right to emit CO2 over to special interest as a free donation. I’m not sure this is socialism (perhaps national socialism?) but it certainly isn’t free market.
 
The same quality source that insisted Stephan Hawking “wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless”

since we seem to be posting links that don't have anything to do with the topic I'll post this one
 
Last edited:
The same quality source that insisted Stephan Hawking “wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless”

I can probably find blatantly stupid things written/said by any source you can name. It's an error in logic to simply dismiss something just because a source had a previous story (probably written by someone else, btw) that was incorrect. If that were the gold standard, there would not be a mainstream source you could cite as evidence of anything. So why don't you try again to deal with the specifics outlined in the article that I did cite. Prove something in that article is false instead of hiding from those allegations. :D
 
I can probably find blatantly stupid things written/said by any source you can name.
Very true.
It's an error in logic to simply dismiss something just because a source had a previous story (probably written by someone else, btw) that was incorrect.
Not just incorrect, in this part. But so far from logically coherent as to question the source's reliability. Stupid is one thing. Blind devotion to ideology is another.
 

Back
Top Bottom