Originally posted by whodeyYour "guesses" are as stupid as you are.
I see. So they are going to double our energy prices so that it will be cheaper for us? Brilliant!! 🙄
As for the progressive plan, we will see where they take us since they are firmly in control. My guess is the US will still be dependent on foriegn oil with troops remaining overseas and double or triple energy prices.
Your Chicken Little claims regarding virtually everything are tiresome and ridiculous. Perhaps you could point to some analysis showing that energy prices will "double or triple" if greenhouse gas emissions are regulated. As it is, electricity prices have almost doubled in the last 10 years and gas prices increased by more than 250%. And that's with those prices not taking into account the costs imposed by greenhouse gas emissions, which means those profiting (but not the public) are getting a "free ride" for their damaging pollution. So, you and your ideological nitwit allies have no clue what may happen with energy prices in the future; in all probability if demand isn't curbed, they will shoot up at similar rates to what happened in the last 10 years. We should be looking for ways to conserve energy as well as increasing production of renewables.
The claim that economic ruin will follow any attempt to regulate industry to reduce negative externalities is an old one. Conservatives wailed the same song when the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts were passed. There is now virtually no doubt that they were absolutely wrong. And they are wrong again regarding their insistence that nothing be done to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
US troops in the Middle East are unnecessary and counterproductive as regards keeping oil prices down as these figures make rather clear. Your constant red herrings to the contrary are just another part of your complete dishonesty on this forum.
Originally posted by no1marauderhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB12458883750781.html
Your "guesses" are as stupid as you are.
Your Chicken Little claims regarding virtually everything are tiresome and ridiculous. Perhaps you could point to some analysis showing that energy prices will "double or triple" if greenhouse gas emissions are regulated. As it is, electricity prices have almost doubled in the last 10 years and ...[text shortened]... errings to the contrary are just another part of your complete dishonesty on this forum.
"The Cap and Trade Fiction"
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put can-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House, and the bill may get a full vote as early as Friday. It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the descipline of economics to get it done.
Despite House Evergy Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman's many payoffs to Members, rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home district businesses and consumers. The leadership's solution to this problem is to simply claim the bill defies the laws of economics.
Their gambit got a boost this week, when the CBO did an analysis of what has come to be known as the Waxman-Merkey bill. According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman's co-author, instantly set to crowing that the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average household. Amazing. A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it contains so many cavets 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 soley at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial oppurtunities 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 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 billsorat the gas statrion, 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 results.
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 scenerio, it found Waxman-Merkey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is about $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.
Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It does not take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others --- manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than staes that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high income families.
Even as Democrats have promised that this cap and trade legislation will not pinch wallets, behind the scenes they have acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offerred three amendments: one to suspend the program IF gas hits $5 a gallon: one to suspend the program IF electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program IF unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated them all.
The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain's taxpayer alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon cutting programs in effect only a few years.
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."
Originally posted by whodeyuh no. come back to reality pee-wee.
We will see what the outcry is when gas goes to $5-6 a gallon at the pumps becomes as well as peoples electric and gas doubling in price. It will then become a call to arms in terms of the cry to drill for oil at home as well as make a gradual conversion to natty gas which is abundant in the US.
You want to pay less for gas? Simple, stop buying gigantic pick up trucks and SUV's just so you can buy groceries at 15 miles/gallon.
You can easily cut your cost of gas in half by just buying a more fuel efficient vehicle next time.
It's not hard.
But you don't want to. That's the real issue here. You arent' willing to do ANYTHING to help out the environment. the gov recognizes that fact, so now they are forcing you. Well, tough beans. You had your choice, and in fact, you still do. It's actually your choice to pay more only if you WANT to. Change your ways and you won't have to pay anymore than you do now.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyBritain's Taxpayer Alliance is not an organisation famous for its support for tackling pollution. One wonders why it didn't claim the figure would be $2,300 or, say, $12,300, as that would have made their claim sound even more scary.
Britain's taxpayer alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon cutting programs in effect only a few years.
2 edits
Originally posted by John W BoothAs the article pointed out, the scary part happens after 2020 when the legislation becomes draconian in nature. Its akin to Obamacare. They seem to like to pick the year 2020 as a futuristic gauge as to the success of any legislation. Then after that date it all goes to pot. That is part of why they collected tax dollars years in advance before Obamacare went into effect. It basically helped offset the money flying out of government in the program until the magical year 2020.
Britain's Taxpayer Alliance is not an organisation famous for its support for tackling pollution. One wonders why it didn't claim the figure would be $2,300 or, say, $12,300, as that would have made their claim sound even more scary.
As for the Repulibcan proposal to add to the legislation safe gaurds that would end the legislation if it became toxic to the economy, would anyone be in favor or this I wonder? In other words, if unemployment goes to 15% or energy doubles, when anyone be in favor of compulsory adjustment of the legislation?
2 edits
Originally posted by uzlessYou ASSUME that I don't already drive the most fuel efficient car out there. In addition, you ASSUME that I can afford that as it is. Of course, I am ASSUMING you and those like you give a damn.
uh no. come back to reality pee-wee.
You want to pay less for gas? Simple, stop buying gigantic pick up trucks and SUV's just so you can buy groceries at 15 miles/gallon.
You can easily cut your cost of gas in half by just buying a more fuel efficient vehicle next time.
It's not hard.
But you don't want to. That's the real issue here. You a only if you WANT to. Change your ways and you won't have to pay anymore than you do now.
What I do know is that the unemployment rates and foreclosure rates in the US are not a pretty picture. So what happens to them I wonder? Oh, that's right, more government subsidy and government spending with government already on the verge of bankruptcy. Brilliant!!!
Originally posted by whodeyYou mean the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association is saying that reducing pollution is in some way similar to the introduction of Death Panels?
As the article pointed out, the scary part happens after 2020 when the legislation becomes draconian in nature. Its akin to Obamacare.
1 edit
Originally posted by John W BoothI never said any such thing. What I am saying is that it seems that the Obamacare and cap and trade have something similar in common which is the fact that they are made to look OK on paper until the year 2020 in order to sell them, after that all bets are off.
You mean the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association is saying that reducing pollution is in some way similar to the introduction of Death Panels?
Originally posted by whodeyif you are REALLY that hard up for cash, i suggest you stop wasting your time on RHP so much and go out and get a second job. Or cut off your internet access bill...
You ASSUME that I don't already drive the most fuel efficient car out there. In addition, you ASSUME that I can afford that as it is. Of course, I am ASSUMING you and those like you give a damn.
What I do know is that the unemployment rates and foreclosure rates in the US are not a pretty picture. So what happens to them I wonder? Oh, that's right, ...[text shortened]... sidy and government spending with government already on the verge of bankruptcy. Brilliant!!!
you can find the money, you just don't want to.
Originally posted by whodeyYou're proposing massive amounts of government spending and subsidies to corporations! What an idiotic hypocrite you are!
You ASSUME that I don't already drive the most fuel efficient car out there. In addition, you ASSUME that I can afford that as it is. Of course, I am ASSUMING you and those like you give a damn.
What I do know is that the unemployment rates and foreclosure rates in the US are not a pretty picture. So what happens to them I wonder? Oh, that's right, ...[text shortened]... sidy and government spending with government already on the verge of bankruptcy. Brilliant!!!