"cap and trade" (insert "r" in proper place)

rbell · Jun 25, 2009

You can tell when most congressmen are lying...their lips are moving.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html

Note Waxman's assertion, vs. the truth of the bill:

Waxman's "take:"

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 caveats as to render it useless.
Click to expand...

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 scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $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.
Click to expand...

If this piece of "legislation" (I can't use the language it deserves) makes it into law...every Washington politician from Obama on down should be removed from office and imprisoned for theft.

What a bunch of thieves we've put into office.

More idiocy:

Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've 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 offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $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 all of them.
Click to expand...

donnA · Jun 25, 2009

they're going to keep on till most of us live in shacks, and struggle to get food, transportation will be prohibitive.
Been there, done that, know what it looks like.

OldRegular · Jun 25, 2009

Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've 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 offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $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 all of them.
Click to expand...

Well you know that the democrats really are the party of the people!:tonofbricks:

Mexdeaf · Jun 25, 2009

donnA said: ↑

they're going to keep on till most of us live in shacks, and struggle to get food, transportation will be prohibitive.
Been there, done that, know what it looks like.
Click to expand...

We'll look like Mexico. Positive spin will be that illegal immigration decreases.

LeBuick · Jun 25, 2009

I don't get it, we have Waxman-Markey vs the CBO. The CBO numbers were not only trusted but shoved in our faces for the stimulus and health care, why do we abandon them now?

I believe Waxman-Markey is probably using that twisted MIT report which had been refuted many moons ago but I don't want to waste the time proving it. It is easy to see their figures assume we won't convert to any alternate fuel sources which is the purpose of cap and trade.

MIT actually came back with numbers close to the CBO but I guess you'll believe the numbers that best make your case.

From Politifact: “The tax might push the price of carbon-based fuels up a bit, but other results of a cap-and-trade program, such as increased conservation and more competition from other fuel sources, would put downward pressure on prices. Moreover, consumers would get some of the tax back from the government in some form.” In fact, MIT has another study, “Report 160, Analysis of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Tax Proposals,” which calculated the cost on families at different income levels. According to Prof. Reilly, “Our Report 160 shows that the costs on lower and middle income households can be completely offset by returning allowance revenue to these households.” (In his press release, Rep. Boehner tried to deflate the rebate concept, saying, “Nothing in the Democrats’ budget would provide rebates or any relief to consumers.” The reply from the Wall Street Journal coverage of the issue: “The draft budget information on planned rebates of cap-and-trade revenue is on page 11, if anyone’s interested.") [GOP Statement 2]
Click to expand...

"cap and trade" (insert "r" in proper place)

rbell Active Member

donnA Active Member

OldRegular Well-Known Member

Mexdeaf New Member

LeBuick New Member

Useful Searches

"cap and trade" (insert "r" in proper place)

rbell Active Member

donnA Active Member

OldRegular Well-Known Member

Mexdeaf New Member

LeBuick New Member