But, doing exactly that is part of a government’s job.
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!
The patriot John McCain has beaten that godless commie Obama and killed this bill!
Cite.
Thank Og the evil Obama was defeated and McCain was able to save us from ruination…
Did Obama show up?
Well, they are both running for president; that’s a pretty good doctor’s note.
It was a lame attempt at humor…
Ya something that Reid apparently doesn’t understand very well.
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:
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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 … .
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.
Cap and trade is a boondoggle just like ethanol.
Taxes have been proven by history NOT good to stimulate the economy.
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.
Is not a question of ‘If’. Money don’t grow on trees!
And since $168 billion in new taxes takes money out of the economy their will be no expanding economy.
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.
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.
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…
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.
How exactly does McCain differ from Obama on these issues?
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.
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
My politics is irrelevant.
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
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?
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!
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?
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?
:rolleyes: No, he’s not. (I wish!)
Though you are not the first to propound that astonishingly retarded canard and you won’t be the last.
Neither is Clinton a socialist, BTW, if that still matters.