ronpaulvoter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2007
- Messages
- 627
- Reaction score
- 111
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Do You Support "Cap and Trade?"
This past Friday, the House of Representitives voted in favor of the controversial bill called "Cap and Trade." Eight Republicans voted for it--enough to get it through.
Neal Boortz calls it "The greatest tax increase in American history." It will cost trillions of dollars.
How do you like it? Vote.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/wp6.pdf
Cap and Trade will put the greatest burden on the poor: as a percent of household income, the average burden will be
6.2% for the bottom quintile,
3.2% for the second quintile,
2.4% for the middle quintile,
2.0% for the fourth quintile, and
1.4% for the highest quintile.
The economic impact is calculable. The environmental impact is not.
CBO notes, however, that the $175 average cost does “not reveal the wide range of effects that the cap-and-trade program would have on households in different income brackets.” According to CBO, “households in the lowest income quintile [lowest one-fifth] would see an average net benefit of about $40 in 2020, while households in the highest income quintile would see a net cost of $245.” In addition, the report says “[h]ouseholds in the second lowest quintile would see added costs of about $40 on average, those in the middle quintile would see an increase in costs of about $235, and those in the fourth quintile would pay about an additional $340 per year.” Additionally, the CBO says that its analysis does not include the benefits, economic or otherwise, of reducing greenhouse gas emissions — which can be difficult to quantify.
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 FactCheck.org Wire and Annenberg Political Fact Check are projects of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.
For one thing, how could cap and trade provide anyone with any net benefit?
Also, from your source: The Cap and Tax Fiction - WSJ.com
Um, of course these folks will spin this in Obama's favor since he sat on the Annenberg Challenge board with his terrorist buddy Billy Ayers. Ayers was a “key founder” of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
In 1995 Obama was appointed Board Chairman and President of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a “branch of the Annenberg Foundation”.
:spin:
Cost is a poor justification against it. It cost us more to switch from leaded to unleaded gasoline, but the reduction in lead exposure was tremendous as were the associated declines in health related costs and environmental costs.
If we do nothing, the cost to relocate millions and the destruction of coastal cities well blow past any cost scheme for cap and trade.
Cost is a poor justification against it. It cost us more to switch from leaded to unleaded gasoline, but the reduction in lead exposure was tremendous as were the associated declines in health related costs and environmental costs.
If we do nothing, the cost to relocate millions and the destruction of coastal cities well blow past any cost scheme for cap and trade.
So switching from leaded to unleaded costed consumers somewhere in the same ball park as this? Yes, no, maybe so?
Besides, you can't just axe the health cost benefits of switching from a clearly harmful mineral to a less harmful formula; that's the main thing seperating that from this. There's no health side affects from carbon dioxide, there may be some for other gases (but if you notice, the more harmful gases don't have a cap and trade system if they're considered 'vital' enough) but not from carbon.
Global warming debate aside, 'course.
We can handle a increase in 10 feet of water; at worst, over the next few centuries with hardly any cost.
We can handle a few inches over the next century, once again, at hardly any cost.
Cost is a poor justification against it. It cost us more to switch from leaded to unleaded gasoline, but the reduction in lead exposure was tremendous as were the associated declines in health related costs and environmental costs.
If we do nothing, the cost to relocate millions and the destruction of coastal cities well blow past any cost scheme for cap and trade.
Cap and trade doesn't work for carbon at the moment because India and China aren't in on it and we don't have the same data that we had for the foundation of the sulfur emissions cap and trade.
What use is reducing carbon emissions in the US when China and India will easily blow past any reductions we do?
We don't even know if AGW is real. How in the hell can anyone support a policy decision based upon an assumption?
My concern is more over how they could all vote for a bill they haven't read.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?