# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2008, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/41 "2008-06-06T04:33:52Z")
[QUOTE=ManiacMan] No my point is that nobody would ever life a finger until concrete proof exists that something bad is going to happen until it is too late. [/QUOTE] But, doing exactly that is part of a government’s **job.** ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2008, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/42 "2008-06-06T14:49:05Z")
Anyway, [there’s not gonna be any change in American GW policy **this** session.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/06/AR2008060600333.html?hpid=topnews) ---
**Author:** ![Lamar\_Mundane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lamar\_Mundane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamar_Mundane)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2008, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/43 "2008-06-06T15:50:35Z")
45,000,000 x 2.50 (average household size) = 116,550,000 / 289,000,000 = 40% x √(Reverend Wright’s weight) + 3,400,000 (number of Muslims in Kenya) = **We’re all going to DIE!** ---
**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 6, 2008, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/44 "2008-06-06T15:54:45Z")
The patriot John McCain has beaten that godless commie Obama and killed this bill! [Cite](http://hamptonroads.com/2008/06/warner-global-warming-bill-fails-senate). Thank Og the evil Obama was defeated and McCain was able to save us from ruination… ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2008, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/45 "2008-06-06T16:32:18Z")
[QUOTE=Eyer8] The patriot John McCain has beaten that godless commie Obama and killed this bill! [/QUOTE] [It’s not really a battlefield triumph for McCain:](http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/senate-blocks-climate-bill-2008-06-06.html) > [@](#): > > unlike Obama, McCain has not endorsed the latest Senate bill, raising concerns that it would do too little to promote nuclear energy. > > Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) wasted no time pointing that out. > > “When you look at who Republicans have chosen as the new standard-bearer, this is not entirely surprising: Sen. McCain says global warming is one of his top issues, but when he has the chance to do something about it, he doesn’t even show up to work,” Reid said. > > McCain and Obama both missed Friday’s vote. ---
**Author:** ![ManiacMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b782af/32.png) [@ManiacMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ManiacMan)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2008, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/46 "2008-06-06T18:02:54Z")
Did Obama show up? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2008, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/47 "2008-06-06T18:11:42Z")
[quote=] McCain and Obama both missed Friday’s vote. [/quote] Well, they **are** both running for president; that’s a pretty good doctor’s note. ---
**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 6, 2008, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/48 "2008-06-06T19:12:05Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] [It’s not really a battlefield triumph for McCain:](http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/senate-blocks-climate-bill-2008-06-06.html) [/QUOTE] It was a lame attempt at humor… ---
**Author:** ![ManiacMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b782af/32.png) [@ManiacMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ManiacMan)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2008, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/49 "2008-06-06T19:33:30Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Well, they **are** both running for president; that’s a pretty good doctor’s note. [/QUOTE] Ya something that Reid apparently doesn’t understand very well. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2008, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/50 "2008-06-06T20:07:35Z")
Let’s see if we can break this argument down a bit. The global warming bill intends to establish a cap and trade system. Companies that pollute can buy credits that determine how much in the way of greenhouse gasses they can emit. These credits are tradeable so companies that reduce their emissions can sell their extra credits to other companies who are still polluting. Over time the “carbon value” of a credit gradually drops, putting pressure on companies to keep lowering their emissions. The government initially gives credits to existing polluters. However, over time they will sell additional credits. This makes good sense. Some companies will have a really hard time reducing emissions and this lets them keep polluting as the value of their credits drop. It also makes it easier for start-up companies to get into the market. Periodically releasing new credits keeps the market liquid. Over 40 years the sales of these additional credits are projected to bring in $6.7 trillion dollars in revenue. **focusonz** ’s argument is this: $6.7 trillion / 40 = $168 billion in new taxes bourne by industry every year … . And if you add in a bunch of overhead this will actually be something like $300 billiion a year … . And If the industries pass these new taxes directly to consumers in the form of higher prices … And if all consumers bear the impact of these higher prices equally … . Then every household’s cost of living will increase by six thousands some odd dollars per year. **Oh noes!** But there are all sorts of problems with this argument: 1. Most of the tax revenue comes years from now as new credits are issued in response to the expanding economy. It doesn’t cost anybody anything right now. 2. The tax revenue is just a bonus. The important part of the system is the carbon market. If down the road we discover that it will be too onerous to price new credits so high … we drop the price! 3. The whole point of this exercise is to encourage industries to take measures to reduce emissions that are \*cheaper \* than the cost of buying more credits. If everyone just buys more credits and keeps polluting the system is pointless. 4. There’s no reason to assume that costs will be passed to all households equally. In fact, since it will cut into the profits of big companies the most, it will probably mostly hit large stockholders … i.e. people in the upper quintile or even the upper 5%. Pure scare tactics. See, is why it’s not a good idea to vote Republican. They’re just not good with numbers … . 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2008, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/51 "2008-06-06T20:43:48Z")
> [@focusonz](#): > > 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. I’m confused. Are you opposed to doing anything about AGW, or just these points? Are you in favor of reducing consumption by some other means than raising prices - like gas rationing? If the cost is not passed on to the consumer, how is the consumer going to make purchasing decisions which will reduce emissions? Under the system, it seems that low footprint companies will eventually be able to underprice polluting companies, which I think is what we want - since the prices then reflect environmental impact. And I’m not sure what legislation could guarantee anything about the impact of global warming. So I’m not sure if you are a right wing AGW denier or a radical environmentalist Communist who thinks the government should directly stop pollution and not let the market work. ---
**Author:** ![focusonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9dc877/32.png) [@focusonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/focusonz)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2008, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/52 "2008-06-10T22:54:58Z")
[QUOTE=Pochacco] The global warming bill intends to establish a cap and trade system. [/QUOTE] Cap and trade is a boondoggle just like ethanol. > [@](#): > > they give the illusion that something constructive is being done. [http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff\_heresies\_07trading](http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff_heresies_07trading) [QUOTE=Pochacco] $6.7 trillion / 40 = $168 billion in new taxes bourne by industry every year [/QUOTE] Taxes have been proven by history NOT good to stimulate the economy. [QUOTE=Pochacco] And if you add in a bunch of overhead this will actually be something like $300 billiion a year … . [/QUOTE] Good point. When these new taxes are used to pay down the deficit and not to stimulate new economic growth or to assist the industries then the industries have to come up with more capital investment dollars to meet their carbon emission goals. [QUOTE=Pochacco] And If the industries pass these new taxes directly to consumers in the form of higher prices … And if all consumers bear the impact of these higher prices equally … . Then every household’s cost of living will increase by six thousands some odd dollars per year. **Oh noes!** [/QUOTE] Is not a question of ‘If’. Money don’t grow on trees! [QUOTE=Pochacco] But there are all sorts of problems with this argument: 1. Most of the tax revenue comes years from now as new credits are issued in response to the expanding economy. It doesn’t cost anybody anything right now. [/QUOTE] And since $168 billion in new taxes takes money out of the economy their will be no expanding economy. [QUOTE=Pochacco] 2. The tax revenue is just a bonus. The important part of the system is the carbon market. If down the road we discover that it will be too onerous to price new credits so high … we drop the price! [/QUOTE] The world will not play in this carbon market as intended to reduce a footprint but to increase a profit. Taxes are never a bonus. [QUOTE=Pochacco] 3. The whole point of this exercise is to encourage industries to take measures to reduce emissions that are \*cheaper \* than the cost of buying more credits. If everyone just buys more credits and keeps polluting the system is pointless. [/QUOTE] It is an exercise in futility as the consumer at all quintiles is the ultimate emitter and their behavior has not been changed or affected. [QUOTE=Pochacco] 4. There’s no reason to assume that costs will be passed to all households equally. In fact, since it will cut into the profits of big companies the most, it will probably mostly hit large stockholders … i.e. people in the upper quintile or even the upper 5%. [/QUOTE] So just how will the public utility commisssion set utility rates just to the upper quintile and not uniformly to all levels. And if the increased costs cannot be passed along then how will the utility companies not go bankrupt. Utility companies don’t work with a large profit margin as they are already government regulated. The bill enforcement provisions of $25,000 per day fines are cheaper for the industries to pay then for buying credits.. [QUOTE=Pochacco] Pure scare tactics. [/QUOTE] You bet! And the desired effect was obtained. Everyone now has a clearer picture of Boxer’s, a democrat, boondoggle S3036. Lieberman and Warners S2021 was and order of magnitude less stupid. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2008, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/53 "2008-06-10T23:09:25Z")
How exactly does McCain differ from Obama on these issues? ---
**Author:** ![focusonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9dc877/32.png) [@focusonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/focusonz)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2008, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/54 "2008-06-11T01:06:23Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] I’m confused. Are you opposed to doing anything about AGW, or just these points? Are you in favor of reducing consumption by some other means than raising prices - like gas rationing? If the cost is not passed on to the consumer, how is the consumer going to make purchasing decisions which will reduce emissions? Under the system, it seems that low footprint companies will eventually be able to underprice polluting companies, which I think is what we want - since the prices then reflect environmental impact. And I’m not sure what legislation could guarantee anything about the impact of global warming. So I’m not sure if you are a right wing AGW denier or a radical environmentalist Communist who thinks the government should directly stop pollution and not let the market work. [/QUOTE] No I have always tried to have a small carbon footprint. Use renewable solar to heat my hot tub home and DHW, build energy efficiently using thermal mass, and a short commute from the upstairs to the downstairs. Under the system we will only penalize ourselves and the system will have no affect on the other 6,500,000,000 who occupy the planet. [QUOTE=Der Trihs] I believe that a great many people have completely irreconcilable agendas for the country, and the world for that matter. [/QUOTE] As to your other questions See [Coolest Winter Since 2001+US oil reserves+Middle east Apocalypse=NO GAS IN 3 YEARS - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=471359) My politics is irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![focusonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9dc877/32.png) [@focusonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/focusonz)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2008, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/55 "2008-06-11T04:38:29Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] How exactly does McCain differ from Obama on these issues? [/QUOTE] Obama wants to tax and spend $300B more and I assume the Obama not veto a Boxer S3036 type bill costing $168B all and all bankrupting 45M households. While McCain only sees need for $9B tax and spend and supports the Lieberman/Warner S2021 type bill costing only $15B. A significantly more family budget friendly platform. Then of course Obama is a socialist while McCain is a capitalist, need more be said! Socialist - any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2008, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/56 "2008-06-11T04:49:41Z")
[QUOTE=focusonz] Obama wants to tax and spend $300B more and I assume the Obama not veto a Boxer S3036 type bill costing $168B all and all bankrupting 45M households. While McCain only sees need for $9B tax and spend and supports the Lieberman/Warner S2021 type bill costing only $15B. A significantly more family budget friendly platform. **Then of course Obama is a socialist while McCain is a capitalist, need more be said!** Socialist - any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods [/QUOTE] Emphasis mine. You know, it seems to me that the very definition you posted for socialist strongly suggests that Obama isn’t one. Have you considered that your opinions are poorly founded and that you haven’t thought very hard before forming them? ---
**Author:** ![focusonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9dc877/32.png) [@focusonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/focusonz)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2008, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/57 "2008-06-11T05:41:36Z")
[QUOTE=Lobohan] You know, it seems to me that the very definition you posted for socialist strongly suggests that Obama isn’t one. Have you considered that your opinions are poorly founded and that you haven’t thought very hard before forming them? [/QUOTE] Obama and democrats advocate governmental ownership of $500B more of the citizens hard earned money and administration of means of certain production and distribution of certain goods. Hillary is only a liberal to tune of $200B in new spending. While Obama and the democrat congress are proposing to cross the line to socialism. By the time you add inflation the total Obama and congress new taxes and spending could approach $900B in four years, a full 30% increase in the budget. This will result in a commensurate reduction in growth of the economy and sending 45M households into bankruptcy they becoming fully dependent upon the governments administration of social production and distribution programs. 45M households in bankruptcy at the 3rd and 4th quintile and 45M households at the 1st and 2nd quintile already dependent upon the government makes a 90M household or 80% socialistic state. It is not an opinion. It is the math! ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2008, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/58 "2008-06-11T17:54:46Z")
[QUOTE=focusonz] While Obama and the democrat congress are proposing to cross the line to socialism. By the time you add inflation the total Obama and congress new taxes and spending could approach $900B in four years, a full 30% increase in the budget. This will result in a commensurate reduction in growth of the economy and sending 45M households into bankruptcy they becoming fully dependent upon the governments administration of social production and distribution programs. 45M households in bankruptcy at the 3rd and 4th quintile and 45M households at the 1st and 2nd quintile already dependent upon the government makes a 90M household or 80% socialistic state. It is not an opinion. It is the math! [/QUOTE] Ah, the math. Just like Karl Rove had “the math” that showed Republicans kicking ass in the 2006 Congressional elections. How’d that turn out, BTW? ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2008, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/59 "2008-06-11T18:54:09Z")
Let’s not forget the current Republican administration has created a public debt in (almost) eight years that is greater than all the previous administrations in the history of the Republic put together. And you are afraid that a President Obama will top this? Have you been angry at the current administration with the same level of rancor and venom you have right now for a hypothetical program a potential presidential candidate may implement? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2008, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709/60 "2008-06-11T19:29:11Z")
[QUOTE=focusonz] Then of course Obama is a socialist . . . [/QUOTE] :rolleyes: No, he’s not. (I **wish!)** Though you are [not the first](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=450940) to propound that astonishingly retarded canard and you won’t be the last. [Neither is Clinton a socialist,](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=453937) BTW, if that still matters. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-legislation-plus-obama-spending-bankruptcy-for-45m-us-households/451709.md?page=2)