• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Admin: Cap and trade could cost families $1,761 a year

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
September 15, 2009 6:12 PM PDT
Commentary: Cap and trade could cost families $1,761 a year
by Declan McCullagh

The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.

A second memorandum, which was prepared for Obama's transition team after the November election, says this about climate change policies: "Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation."

The documents (PDF) were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute and released on Tuesday.

story
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10354179-38.html

documents
http://www.openmarket.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/FOIA-Cap-andTrade-2009-09-11.PDF
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
September 15, 2009 6:12 PM PDT
Commentary: Cap and trade could cost families $1,761 a year
by Declan McCullagh

The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.

A second memorandum, which was prepared for Obama's transition team after the November election, says this about climate change policies: "Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation."

The documents (PDF) were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute and released on Tuesday.

story
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10354179-38.html

documents
http://www.openmarket.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/FOIA-Cap-andTrade-2009-09-11.PDF

How much will an out-of-whack climate cost us?

I think it will make $1761 a year look like chump-change.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
badaxemoo said:
hypocritexposer said:
September 15, 2009 6:12 PM PDT
Commentary: Cap and trade could cost families $1,761 a year
by Declan McCullagh

The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.

A second memorandum, which was prepared for Obama's transition team after the November election, says this about climate change policies: "Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation."

The documents (PDF) were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute and released on Tuesday.

story
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10354179-38.html

documents
http://www.openmarket.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/FOIA-Cap-andTrade-2009-09-11.PDF

How much will an out-of-whack climate cost us?

I think it will make $1761 a year look like chump-change.

What does a welfare recipient care about cost. All you folks worry about is how many days till the first of da month,. Or when da next cookin show starts.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
hypocritexposer said:
September 15, 2009 6:12 PM PDT
Commentary: Cap and trade could cost families $1,761 a year
by Declan McCullagh

The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.

A second memorandum, which was prepared for Obama's transition team after the November election, says this about climate change policies: "Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation."

The documents (PDF) were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute and released on Tuesday.

story
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10354179-38.html

documents
http://www.openmarket.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/FOIA-Cap-andTrade-2009-09-11.PDF

How much will an out-of-whack climate cost us?

I think it will make $1761 a year look like chump-change.

Wasn't it supposed to be "revenue neutral"?
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
badaxemoo said:
hypocritexposer said:
story
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10354179-38.html

documents
http://www.openmarket.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/FOIA-Cap-andTrade-2009-09-11.PDF

How much will an out-of-whack climate cost us?

I think it will make $1761 a year look like chump-change.

Wasn't it supposed to be "revenue neutral"?

Both climate change and healthcare reform (if done right) are going to cost more in the short-term than the White House is promising.

But I couldn't care less.

Both are worst the investment at much higher costs.
 

Cal

Well-known member
Libs can't even do a good job managing Cash for Clunkers.....now they're going to fix the climate that ain't broken :roll:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/aug_09_co2.pdf
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
hypocritexposer said:
September 15, 2009 6:12 PM PDT
Commentary: Cap and trade could cost families $1,761 a year
by Declan McCullagh

The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.

A second memorandum, which was prepared for Obama's transition team after the November election, says this about climate change policies: "Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation."

The documents (PDF) were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute and released on Tuesday.

story
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10354179-38.html

documents
http://www.openmarket.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/FOIA-Cap-andTrade-2009-09-11.PDF

How much will an out-of-whack climate cost us?

I think it will make $1761 a year look like chump-change.

Let me explain something to you Badaxe;
If there is a cost to people, that means that companies are passing along their costs
If companies are passing along their costs, that means they're paying for carbon credits.
If they're paying for carbon credits, that means they're not reducing carbon.
If they're not reducing carbon, this whole boondoggle is proven to be a fliping worthless farce.

THUS, if this costs the consumer money, it's a flipping worthless farce. Obama said it is going to cost us money. Connect the dots and have another piece of gullible pie.
 

commonsense

Well-known member
But obama said it would only cost me a postage stamp a day. Is he confused? Watch for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJxtetj5B7Y
 

commonsense

Well-known member
The federal reserve can't even account for $1700 for each and every man women and child in the us. A family of one could just about cover cap n trades if our FR had it's act together and the numbers are correct.
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Cal said:
Libs can't even do a good job managing Cash for Clunkers.....now they're going to fix the climate that ain't broken :roll:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/aug_09_co2.pdf

Smells like astroturf.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute

Why don't you find a similar article from a peer-reviewed scientific journal - something written by a scientist or group of scientists from an accredited university.

That might be worth reading.
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
badaxemoo said:
hypocritexposer said:
story
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10354179-38.html

documents
http://www.openmarket.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/FOIA-Cap-andTrade-2009-09-11.PDF

How much will an out-of-whack climate cost us?

I think it will make $1761 a year look like chump-change.

Let me explain something to you Badaxe;
If there is a cost to people, that means that companies are passing along their costs
If companies are passing along their costs, that means they're paying for carbon credits.
If they're paying for carbon credits, that means they're not reducing carbon.
If they're not reducing carbon, this whole boondoggle is proven to be a fliping worthless farce.

THUS, if this costs the consumer money, it's a flipping worthless farce. Obama said it is going to cost us money. Connect the dots and have another piece of gullible pie.

I would think you would like cap and trade.

It offers a market solution to the problem.

Are you actually saying that consumers are dumb enough to continue buying more "carbon heavy" products, when companies will certainly develop more "carbon light" products to compete with them at a lower price?

That wouldn't be very "rational" now, would it?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
So in your fantasy I'll have the choice of "regular" or "carbon-light" electricity from my power company?

Obviosly Obama doesn't believe it or he wouldn't of attached that price tag - and you know damn well they're low-balling all they can.

Let me explain to you again, pieboy, a cost being passed onto consumers is proof alone that the stated intent of saving the world ISN'T HAPPENING.

How can you be so dang gullible?
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
Cal said:
Libs can't even do a good job managing Cash for Clunkers.....now they're going to fix the climate that ain't broken :roll:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/aug_09_co2.pdf

Smells like astroturf.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute

Why don't you find a similar article from a peer-reviewed scientific journal - something written by a scientist or group of scientists from an accredited university.

That might be worth reading.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
So in your fantasy I'll have the choice of "regular" or "carbon-light" electricity from my power company?

Obviosly Obama doesn't believe it or he wouldn't of attached that price tag - and you know damn well they're low-balling all they can.

Let me explain to you again, pieboy, a cost being passed onto consumers is proof alone that the stated intent of saving the world ISN'T HAPPENING.

How can you be so dang gullible?

You probably already have that choice.

We do through our electric co-op. It costs more to buy out of a greener portfolio.

Under cap and trade, consumers wouldn't have to choose to voluntarily pay more for the greener power. It would already be more competitive, and maybe even cheaper, than dirtier power.

It is a better market solution because it removes externalities - which are big causes of market failures under our system.

I would think an ardent capitalist such as yourself would be happy to be rid of externalities, since they get in the way of properly functioning markets.

I still have no clue what you are trying to get at in terms of stating that because some costs are passed on to consumers, the goal is not to reduce carbon emissions.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
Sandhusker said:
So in your fantasy I'll have the choice of "regular" or "carbon-light" electricity from my power company?

Obviosly Obama doesn't believe it or he wouldn't of attached that price tag - and you know damn well they're low-balling all they can.

Let me explain to you again, pieboy, a cost being passed onto consumers is proof alone that the stated intent of saving the world ISN'T HAPPENING.

How can you be so dang gullible?

You probably already have that choice.

We do through our electric co-op. It costs more to buy out of a greener portfolio.

Under cap and trade, consumers wouldn't have to choose to voluntarily pay more for the greener power. It would already be more competitive, and maybe even cheaper, than dirtier power.

It is a better market solution because it removes externalities - which are big causes of market failures under our system.

I would think an ardent capitalist such as yourself would be happy to be rid of externalities, since they get in the way of properly functioning markets.

I still have no clue what you are trying to get at in terms of stating that because some costs are passed on to consumers, the goal is not to reduce carbon emissions.

Maybe you should spend less time baking pies and more time trying to COMPREHEND you would get a grasp!!
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
hopalong said:
badaxemoo said:
Sandhusker said:
So in your fantasy I'll have the choice of "regular" or "carbon-light" electricity from my power company?

Obviosly Obama doesn't believe it or he wouldn't of attached that price tag - and you know damn well they're low-balling all they can.

Let me explain to you again, pieboy, a cost being passed onto consumers is proof alone that the stated intent of saving the world ISN'T HAPPENING.

How can you be so dang gullible?

You probably already have that choice.

We do through our electric co-op. It costs more to buy out of a greener portfolio.

Under cap and trade, consumers wouldn't have to choose to voluntarily pay more for the greener power. It would already be more competitive, and maybe even cheaper, than dirtier power.

It is a better market solution because it removes externalities - which are big causes of market failures under our system.

I would think an ardent capitalist such as yourself would be happy to be rid of externalities, since they get in the way of properly functioning markets.

I still have no clue what you are trying to get at in terms of stating that because some costs are passed on to consumers, the goal is not to reduce carbon emissions.

Maybe you should spend less time baking pies and more time trying to COMPREHEND you would get a grasp!!

Well perhaps you could explain it, hoppy?

But from what I know of you, you probably think cap and trade deals with seed corn premiums and baseball cards.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
Sandhusker said:
So in your fantasy I'll have the choice of "regular" or "carbon-light" electricity from my power company?

Obviosly Obama doesn't believe it or he wouldn't of attached that price tag - and you know damn well they're low-balling all they can.

Let me explain to you again, pieboy, a cost being passed onto consumers is proof alone that the stated intent of saving the world ISN'T HAPPENING.

How can you be so dang gullible?

You probably already have that choice.

We do through our electric co-op. It costs more to buy out of a greener portfolio.

Under cap and trade, consumers wouldn't have to choose to voluntarily pay more for the greener power. It would already be more competitive, and maybe even cheaper, than dirtier power.

It is a better market solution because it removes externalities - which are big causes of market failures under our system.

I would think an ardent capitalist such as yourself would be happy to be rid of externalities, since they get in the way of properly functioning markets.

I still have no clue what you are trying to get at in terms of stating that because some costs are passed on to consumers, the goal is not to reduce carbon emissions.

I'm trying to explain to you that maybe the goal is to reduce emissions, but those costs are proof that the goal is not being acheived. If carbon is reduced, there is no need to incur the cost of carbon credits! When Obama says it is going to cost consumers $XX, he's inadvertently admitting that carbon emissions will NOT be reduced.
 
Top