# AGW legislation plus Obama Spending = bankruptcy for 45M US Households **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 4, 2008, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709 "2008-06-04T02:04:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![focusonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9dc877/32.png) [@focusonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/focusonz)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2008, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/1 "2008-06-04T02:04:39Z")
> [@](#): > > **Senate votes to begin global warming debate** > legislation to combat global warming by mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. > > The Senate measure … would cap U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, cutting them by 18 percent by 2020 and by two-thirds by mid-century. It would specifically target refineries, power plants, factories and transportation for 70 percent reductions and make emissions allowances available to be traded in an open market. > > The bill proposes using proceeds from the sale of carbon emission allowances to funnel $800 billion in tax relief, over 40 years, to people facing higher energy costs, she said. > > a pollution allowance trading system. The emissions allowances were projected to generate $6.7 trillion in revenue over 40 years. > > These costs (of doing nothing) dwarf the kind of costs that people are talking about from taking serious initiatives to do something about climate change," said Frank Ackerman, a Tufts University economist and co-author of a recent report on the potential economic impacts of global warming. > [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080602/ap\_on\_go\_co/climate\_showdown](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080602/ap_on_go_co/climate_showdown) > **[Economic analysis of climate change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_global_warming)** > > Economic analysis of climate change uses economic tools and models to calculate the scale and distribution of damages caused by climate change. It can also give guidance for the best policies for mitigation and adaptation to climate change from an economic perspective. There are many economic models and frameworks. For example, in a cost–benefit analysis, the trade offs between climate change impacts, adaptation, and mitigation are made explicit. For this kind of analysis, integrated assessment... [http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0229748720080602](http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0229748720080602) > [@](#): > > \*\*How the bill works \*\* > – Cap: The measure would require U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases to peak in 2012, then gradually decline by about 2 percent a year until 2050 - for a total reduction of about 66 percent from current levels. > – Trade: To meet the required reductions, 2,100 major emitters - mostly coal-fired power plants, oil refineries, natural gas processors and chemical plants - would have to buy permits to emit greenhouse gases. Companies with more permits than they need could trade or sell them to other firms. > – Auction: Initially, many of the credits would be given away to emitters to help them transition to the new system - which some critics call a giveaway to polluters. Eventually most credits would be auctioned off, generating trillions in dollars for the government to distribute. The money would pay for clean energy technologies and rebates to poor consumers, who will likely face higher energy prices because of the bill. > – Allowances: The permits to emit greenhouse gases, called allowances, won’t just go to industry. States like California that act on climate change would be offered $566 billion worth of allowances through 2050. The bill gives billions more in incentives for green buildings, energy efficiency measures and conservation at farms and in forests. But many conservatives see it a tax-and-spend scheme dressed up as a market-based approach. > – Offsets: The bill allows major emitters to meet 15 percent of their emissions reductions by buying offsets, such as tree planting, to absorb carbon dioxide. They could meet another 15 percent of their reductions through international projects, such as reducing deforestation. > – Carbon board: A Carbon Market Efficiency Board, likened to a Federal Reserve Board for carbon, would report to Congress on how the system is working. If the price of carbon rises too quickly, the board could allow emitters to borrow from their future allowances to meet today’s requirements. > [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/01/MNEF111GNL.DTL](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/01/MNEF111GNL.DTL) The synopsis of the legislation Details how money is collected! **Does not** detail how money is spent! **Does not** reduce requirements for environmental impact statements. Nukes and wind **Does not** reduce consumption except by increasing energy prices **Does not** restrict emitters passing on cost to consumer. \*\*Does not \*\*guarantee that potential economic impacts of global warming is eliminated or even reduced. \*\*Does not \*\* give cost of bureaucratic and broker commissions overhead assume 20% \*\*Does not \*\* give net incentives benefit for green buildings, energy efficiency measures assume 80% I can’t attach a spreadsheet or format a table but if you do the math **Assume AGW Cost to 2100 major emitters is passed to consumer households** > **[Household income in the United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States)** > > Household income is an economic measure of one household's total income. This measure can be aggregated across households for a geographic unit such as county, city, region or country. It is commonly used by the United States government and private institutions to describe a household's economic status or to track economic trends in the US. Household income is often defined as gross (pre-tax) wage income, excluding benefits and transfers from government welfare programs. > A key aggregate is ... [http://www.census.gov/prod/1/pop/p25-1129.pdf](http://www.census.gov/prod/1/pop/p25-1129.pdf) **at the middle, forth, and highest quintile** **Household expenses increase by 7.5% to 9.6% respectively.** **Add $309B Obama spending $309B /45M taxpayer households (forth & highest quintile) = $6866/yr increased taxes.** **at the forth and highest quintile** **Household expenses including new tax increase by 20% and 17% respectively.** **Now given the Household Saving as % of before tax income** [https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/2642/RL33168\_20051118.pdf?sequence=1](https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/2642/RL33168_20051118.pdf?sequence=1) **middle 3.5% or $1215/yr forth 17.4% or $9662/yr highest 35.7% or $31426/yr** **and take away the AGW expense increase and the Obama tax increase** **then household savings are middle (-$1583) forth (-$1370) highest $16038** **The middle and forth quintile Households are bankrupt while the highest quintile household savings are reduced by 66%.** ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2008, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/2 "2008-06-04T02:29:44Z")
I’m not quite sure how you can criticize the bill for not showing how the revenue will be spent, since your own summaries show it will be used to offset energy costs for consumers and pay for more efficient energy technologies. And while you’re at it, perhaps you can show your math on why you estimate government overhead to be 20% of the collected revenue. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2008, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/3 "2008-06-04T03:53:13Z")
Wait a minute, what does this have to do with Obama again? I am confused. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2008, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/4 "2008-06-04T04:14:16Z")
Isn’t it obvious? Obama = Disaster For Us All Of Biblical Proportions! Cut & Paste OPs are so revealing. ---
**Author:** ![focusonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9dc877/32.png) [@focusonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/focusonz)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2008, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/5 "2008-06-04T04:16:56Z")
[QUOTE=Ravenman] I’m not quite sure how you can criticize the bill for not showing how the revenue will be spent, since your own summaries show it will be used to offset energy costs for consumers and pay for more efficient energy technologies. [/QUOTE] The article reports $7.5 trillion income while only identifying “$566 billion” for California and gives billions more in incentives and $800 billion in tax relief makes a total of $1.36 trillion. So there is $6.14 trillion unaccounted for. [QUOTE=Ravenman] And while you’re at it, perhaps you can show your math on why you estimate government overhead to be 20% of the collected revenue. [/QUOTE] 6% commission on offset sales 7% Dept of energy ($7.1B) and EPA ($23B) and HUD ($38B) combined budgets and doubled 7% one half of 15 percent of major emitters offsets reductions through international projects ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2008, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/6 "2008-06-04T04:19:28Z")
[QUOTE=Eyer8] Wait a minute, what does this have to do with Obama again? I am confused. [/QUOTE] Oh, I get it. Now that Obama is the democratic candidate for president you are trying to use the standard Republican tactic of fear mongering to get people to vote for McCain because your candidate can’t stand on the issues. So first you are going to try to whip up hysteria about a bill cosponsored by Boxer (D-CA) and Warner (R-VA) that raises gasoline taxes by 53 cents over the next 22 (YIKES!!!) years as doom for the American common man (How will I be able to afford PPV NASCAR?), then you will probably attack a bill cosponsored by Bauchus (D-MT) and Cochran (R-MS) for medical insurance reform as a mandate by Obama to commence with cloning babies and aborting them in the third trimester for the stem cells… Really, I am not feeling the love here. I don’t know the details of this carbon emission bill, but it would not surprise me if it was stupid (the government being what it is). Convince me that it is stupid with out using **BOLD FACE TYPE** and \*\*INCREASINGLY LARGER TYPEFACE \*\* and maybe I will be on your side. Regarding the Obama connection, prove it and maybe I’ll even vote McCain (Though I doubt it. I believe the Republicans need to be punished and sent a clear message for their incompetence and corruption over the last 8-16 years - not saying the Democrats are lily-white, but they are at least an order of magnitude closer to beautification than the Pubbies). Finally, show me a plan how the current government spending and low tax rate is not going to bankrupt my very own children (who I plan on sponging of when I am older) and I will vote Republican for life!!!11OneOne! ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2008, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/7 "2008-06-04T04:26:24Z")
[QUOTE=focusonz] The article reports $7.5 trillion income while only identifying “$566 billion” for California and gives billions more in incentives and $800 billion in tax relief makes a total of $1.36 trillion. So there is $6.14 trillion unaccounted for. [/quote] Dude, this is just the money that goes to Haliburton being re-allocated to firms that donate to the Democratic party. Lighten up, it happens with every turn of the worm… ---
**Author:** ![focusonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9dc877/32.png) [@focusonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/focusonz)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2008, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/8 "2008-06-04T04:42:11Z")
The bill as roughed out in cites doesn’t take care of the poor! $7.5 trillion/40 yrs divided by 113 million households is $66,000 per household cost for AGW over 40 years 45 million households in lowest and second quintile times $66,000 per household tax relief is $2.97 trillion. The bill say only $800 billion tax relief. The poor will have to come up with $2.97 trillion – $800 billion = $2.07 trillion over 40 years or $95 each and every month for increased energy costs due to the proposed AGW legislation. **The AGW legislation makes the poor poorer!** ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2008, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/9 "2008-06-04T04:47:31Z")
I see. So you’re saying we should lower taxes on poor people, and raise them on the rich to compensate? ---
**Author:** ![focusonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9dc877/32.png) [@focusonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/focusonz)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2008, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/10 "2008-06-04T04:47:40Z")
[QUOTE=Eyer8] Wait a minute, what does this have to do with Obama again? I am confused. [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > The National Taxpayers Union Foundation’s (NTUF’s) candidate cost analysis project show that their federal budget proposals are racing ahead as well. According to neutral data, Obama’s platform would boost yearly federal spending by $307.3 billion, 36% higher the Clintons, $226.1 billion > > The GOP candidate John McCain called for spending hikes of $6.9 billion. Dated March 3, 2008 [Page Not Found - Search - National Taxpayers Union](http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=995&org_name=NTUF) The democrats want AGW legislation and Obama has a platform. The combined costs will bankrupt 45 million US households. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2008, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/11 "2008-06-04T04:57:37Z")
Or, bankrupt one household 45 million times. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2008, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/12 "2008-06-04T05:08:34Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Or, bankrupt one household 45 million times. [/QUOTE] I’d hate to be those guys. ---
**Author:** ![focusonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9dc877/32.png) [@focusonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/focusonz)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2008, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/13 "2008-06-04T05:10:45Z")
[QUOTE=treis] I see. So you’re saying we should lower taxes on poor people, and raise them on the rich to compensate? [/QUOTE] No, All I am saying is that as proposed the legislation will collect $7.5T over 40 yrs but you now have to take away $2.97 trillion for tax relief (AKA EIC) to offset the increased cost of energy to the poor, and take away $1.5 trillion for government overhead and sales commissions that leaves you with only $3 trillion to spend on incentives for green buildings, energy efficiency measures or $75 billion per year. The AGW legislation sure is a long way around to just get people to build Insulated concret forms (ICF) energy efficient homes, install ground source heat pumps (GSHP), tankless hot water heaters, reduce the EPA impact statement approval process to build nukes and wind farms, and build high speed rail to eliminate commuting in a cars in the cities. ---
**Author:** ![focusonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9dc877/32.png) [@focusonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/focusonz)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2008, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/14 "2008-06-04T05:25:19Z")
[QUOTE=Eyer8] So first you are going to try to whip up hysteria about a bill cosponsored by Boxer (D-CA) and Warner (R-VA) that raises gasoline taxes by 53 cents over the next 22 (YIKES!!!) years [/QUOTE] Is not just gasoline, it is 2,100 major emitters - mostly coal-fired power plants, oil refineries, natural gas processors and chemical plants and that means price of electricity, gasoline, heating, and plastics will go up dramatically! The proposed legislation will collect from these 2,100 major emitters $7.5 trillion over 40 yrs divided by 113 million households is $66,000 per household cost for AGW over 40 years or cost of living increase of $2798/yr for 67 million households having incomes of $34,738 per year and greater. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2008, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/15 "2008-06-04T05:35:00Z")
[QUOTE=focusonz] The AGW legislation sure is a long way around to just get people to build Insulated concret forms (ICF) energy efficient homes, install ground source heat pumps (GSHP), tankless hot water heaters, reduce the EPA impact statement approval process to build nukes and wind farms, and build high speed rail to eliminate commuting in a cars in the cities. [/QUOTE] And this is Obama’s fault how? [QUOTE=focusonz] Is not just gasoline, it is 2,100 major emitters - mostly coal-fired power plants, oil refineries, natural gas processors and chemical plants and that means price of electricity, gasoline, heating, and plastics will go up dramatically! The proposed legislation will collect from these 2,100 major emitters $7.5 trillion over 40 yrs divided by 113 million households is $66,000 per household cost for AGW over 40 years or cost of living increase of $2798/yr for 67 million households having incomes of $34,738 per year and greater. [/QUOTE] I’m pretty sure this part of the bill is McCain’s fault. I read it on a Blog… ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2008, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/16 "2008-06-04T05:36:18Z")
[QUOTE=silenus] Isn’t it obvious? Obama = Disaster For Us All Of Biblical Proportions! Cut & Paste OPs are so revealing. [/QUOTE] That last sentence is generally quite true – though usually not of what the OP intended them to be revealing. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2008, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/17 "2008-06-04T05:37:38Z")
[QUOTE=Eyer8] I’m pretty sure this part of the bill is McCain’s fault. I read it on a Blog… [/QUOTE] [Cite.](http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/mccain_vows_to.html) > [@](#): > > “I will clean up the planet,” McCain said. “I will make global warming a priority.” ---
**Author:** ![focusonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9dc877/32.png) [@focusonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/focusonz)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2008, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/18 "2008-06-04T05:54:43Z")
[QUOTE=Eyer8] And this is Obama’s fault how? [/QUOTE] From Obama platform. > [@](#): > > **Energy/Environmental Issues:** Obama pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, with a goal of 80 percent by 2050, and make the U.S. a leader in the effort to combat climate change by leading a new international global warming partnership. Supports implementing a cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Pledges to invest $150 billion over the next 10 years to develop and implement “climate-friendly energy supplies, protect our existing manufacturing base and create millions of new jobs.” Pledges to double federal clean energy research spending. Supports efforts to reduce dependence on foreign oil, and to reduce oil consumption by 35 percent by 2030. Would require that 25 percent of electricity come from renewable sources by 2025. [http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/bios/view.bg?articleid=1063110](http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/bios/view.bg?articleid=1063110) ---
**Author:** ![focusonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9dc877/32.png) [@focusonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/focusonz)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2008, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/19 "2008-06-04T06:27:57Z")
[QUOTE=Eyer8] Finally, show me a plan how the current government spending and low tax rate is not going to bankrupt my very own children (who I plan on sponging of when I am older) and I will vote Republican for life!!!11OneOne! [/QUOTE] My concern as well. If Obama would promise to decrease government spending I would vote for him in a heart beat. But > [@](#): > > The National Taxpayers Union Foundation’s (NTUF’s) candidate cost analysis project show that their federal budget proposals are racing ahead as well. According to neutral data, Obama’s platform would boost yearly federal spending by $307.3 billion, 36% higher the Clintons, $226.1 billion > The GOP candidate John McCain called for spending hikes of $6.9 billion. Dated March 3, 2008 [Page Not Found - Search - National Taxpayers Union](http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?P...5&org_name=NTUF) $307 billion / 22 million households in the highest quintile or $14000 of new taxes per each household. The highest quintile saves 35.7% of their income of $88,030 or $31426/yr. The highest quintile savings would be reduce to $28426 with the Obama tax and spend. With Obama’s \*\*new taxes and new spending to match \*\*is going to bankrupt your very own children just the same. But your children will be worse off because the capital for new investment has been redistributed and is gone. We will be worse off with Obama! Personally I like the $14000 contract to pour concrete for the highest quintile people as I expect the recently laid off truck and SUV assembly workers liked working for them as well. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2008, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/20 "2008-06-04T13:35:37Z")
How exactly does McCain differ from Obama on these issues? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709.md?page=2)