Cap and trade...

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

...by now, y'all should have a basic understanding of what that is.

If not, imagine you eat 3,000 calories a day and the goal is to get you to eat 2,500. So, you have to pay a tax on the 500 calories. Either you cut back and save the money or you pay.

Now, if you happen to be very well connected, politically, you will get a credit for 5,000 calories a day and be able to sell the extra 2,500.

Viola; instant wealth creation.

Now, we will be told that it will be fair at the beginning, all equal, no favorites. However, that is, obviously horse feathers.

Now imagine you want three cars instead of two, a an addition on your home, expand your business, take more flights per year, longer car trips. That, on a grand scale, is where this is going.

We'll be told it ONLY applies to business, but, that's like saying "We're only executing the tallest people" and you're short. What happens when they've shot all the tallest people?

Need to think this through before this gets out of hand. Like TARP. TARP II. The Stimuli. GM. AIG, etc, etc...

[Jigglepuff]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...by now, y'all should have a basic understanding of what that is.

If not, imagine you eat 3,000 calories a day and the goal is to get you to eat 2,500. So, you have to pay a tax on the 500 calories. Either you cut back and save the money or you pay.

Now, if you happen to be very well connected, politically, you will get a credit for 5,000 calories a day and be able to sell the extra 2,500.

Viola; instant wealth creation.

Now, we will be told that it will be fair at the beginning, all equal, no favorites. However, that is, obviously horse feathers.

Now imagine you want three cars instead of two, a an addition on your home, expand your business, take more flights per year, longer car trips. That, on a grand scale, is where this is going.

We'll be told it ONLY applies to business, but, that's like saying "We're only executing the tallest people" and you're short. What happens when they've shot all the tallest people?

Need to think this through before this gets out of hand. Like TARP. TARP II. The Stimuli. GM. AIG, etc, etc...

He makes me sick. More proof he's a hybrid of Jimmy Carter, Woodrow Willson and FDR. All three on crack.

I'm actually amazed at how liberal he is. I thought he would curb his "socialist" enthusiasm when he got in office. I'm dead wrong about that and it's not even 5 months into his presedency.

[ImnoMensa]

It's theft, pure and simple. Selling a product that doesnt exist.

It's taxing created out of a clear blue sky. One of the greatest con games to ever come out of the Global warming scam . Ceate the scam, rake in the cash.

When this takes effect every man ,woman and child in America will be bent over and receive the royal Obama shaft.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Jigglepuff

He makes me sick. More proof he's a hybrid of Jimmy Carter, Woodrow Willson and FDR. All three on crack.

I'm actually amazed at how liberal he is. I thought he would curb his "socialist" enthusiasm when he got in office. I'm dead wrong about that and it's not even 5 months into his presedency.

Dude, he IS curbing his socialist enthusiasms.




Don't you recall what he was going to do to the oil companies for their evil profits? He didn't actually have sex with Ortega and Chavez.

The man is a conservative, by any measure.

[cwo_ghwebb]

Republican opponents to Barack Obama’s cap-and-trade policy claimed that the costs passed along to the energy consumer would eventually amount to about $3100 a year, calling this a tax by other means. Proponents scoffed at the suggestion, claiming that the actual cost would be less than a tenth of that amount. They cited John Reilly, an MIT professor who claimed that the GOP lied about the study he conducted in order to concoct that number — and organizations from newspapers to Think Progress to MS-NBC and even the Wall Street Journal used his statement to call Republicans liars for the last several weeks.

They may have to eat those words. Professor Reilly has rechecked his figures, and now he says that not only were the Republicans right after all, they actually underestimated the costs to the consumer. John McCormack scores the exclusive:

Many congressional Republicans, including members of the GOP leadership, have claimed that the plan to limit carbon emissions through cap and trade would cost the average household more than $3,100 per year. According to an MIT study, between 2015 and 2050 cap and trade would annually raise an average of $366 billion in revenues (divided by 117 million households equals $3,128 per household, the Republicans reckon).

But on March 24, after interviewing one of the MIT professors who conducted the study on which the GOP relied to produce its estimate, the St. Petersburg Times fact-check unit,

Politifact, declared the GOP figure of $3,100 per household was a “Pants on Fire” falsehood. The GOP claim is “just wrong,” MIT professor John Reilly told Politifact. “It’s wrong in so many ways it’s hard to begin.” …

During a lengthy email exchange last week with THE WEEKLY STANDARD, MIT professor John Reilly admitted that his original estimate of cap and trade’s cost was inaccurate. The annual cost would be “$800 per household”, he wrote. “I made a boneheaded mistake in an excel spread sheet. I have sent a new letter to Republicans correcting my error (and to others).”

While $800 is significantly more than Reilly’s original estimate of $215 (not to mention more than Obama’s middle-class tax cut), it turns out that Reilly is still low-balling the cost of cap and trade by using some fuzzy logic. In reality, cap and trade could cost the average household more than $3,900 per year.

The $800 paid annually per household is merely the “cost to the economy [that] involves all those actions people have to take to reduce their use of fossil fuels or find ways to use them without releasing [Green House Gases],” Reilly wrote. “So that might involve spending money on insulating your home, or buying a more expensive hybrid vehicle to drive, or electric utilities substituting gas (or wind, nuclear, or solar) instead of coal in power generation, or industry investing in more efficient motors or production processes, etc. with all of these things ending up reflected in the costs of good and services in the economy.”

In other words, Reilly estimates that “the amount of tax collected” through companies would equal $3,128 per household–and “Those costs do get passed to consumers and income earners in one way or another”–but those costs have “nothing to do with the real cost” to the economy. Reilly assumes that the $3,128 will be “returned” to each household.

Without that assumption, Reilly wrote, “the cost would then be the Republican estimate [$3,128] plus the cost I estimate [$800].”

At issue is what happens to all of the cap-and-trade funds that get collected by the government in the Obama plan. In order to believe that the Obama-predicted revenues pulled out of the energy industry won’t impact the consumer, either one has to believe that energy producers won’t pass along those costs in price hikes (which is ridiculous), or that the Obama administration envisions a profit-sharing plan in which the money all goes back to the consumers. The latter is equally ridiculous, and demonstrably so. In the first place, Obama has already hiked federal spending $400 billion in the next fiscal year, and even his own OMB predicts trillion-dollar deficits for the next decade after that. Massive rebates might sound great to Republicans, but Democrats will never, ever agree to them.

In any case, with these deficits, the money for rebates technically doesn’t exist.

Besides, the money has already been earmarked. Obama himself said he would use the money for massive government expenditures on renewables research. Other Democrats counted on the money to fund health-care reform. No one in the administration or Congress ever envisioned giving the money back to the consumers, directly or even indirectly.

Hot Air » Blog Archive » On second thought, GOP cap-and-trade cost estimates on the money

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by cwo_ghwebb

Hot Air » Blog Archive » On second thought, GOP cap-and-trade cost estimates on the money

It should absolutely go without saying that a government designed energy plan IS going to cost much more and deliver less than any free market plan.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

I'll give you a dollar if you can name who's Cap & Trade policy he is enacting.



By "give you a dollar", I mean a totally mythical non-existant dollar

I'll give you a million of those same dollars if you acknowledge it doesn't matter who suggests such a thing, it matters who implements it.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Thats a cop out, the guy you voted for was the one who drafted up the plan that is now being implemented.

The guy you voted for, championed this Cap & Trade plan, hell he is the co-author. Are you trying to say after he suggested THIS Cap & Trade plan, and then went and authored THIS Cap & Trade plan he wasnt going to implemment it?

:rollseyes: Now thats grasping

That's SO unfair!

Big John on the campaign trail a year ago;

McCain Pushes 'Cap-And-Trade' Plan to Fight Global Warming

Presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain is using the idea of global togetherness to promote “a cap-and-trade system” to battle climate change. He said “Americans and Europeans need to get serious about substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years or we will hand over a much-diminished world to our grandchildren.”

Big John now;

McCain rails against Obama cap-and-trade plan | Grist

Sen. John McCain says he’s still a proud proponent of using a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, but he’s not going to back President Barack Obama’s climate agenda any time soon.

McCain, coauthor of multiple cap-and-trade bills in the past, addressed an energy symposium sponsored by the Reform Institute on Tuesday. In his remarks, he called for bipartisanship on climate and energy policy—but offered scathing criticism of the Obama administration’s plans, calling them “irresponsible, ill-conceived.”

How can a case be made for what McCain is actually for?

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

I'll give you a million of those same dollars if you acknowledge it doesn't matter who suggests such a thing, it matters who implements it.

Oh.

My.

God.